Detección de malaria mediante los Kits LoopAMP TM Malaria

Data collection is the precise, systematic gathering of information relevant to the research purpose or the specific objectives, question, hypothesis of the study (Burns, Grove & Gray, 2013). Planning the data collection enables the researcher to anticipate any problems that are likely to occur and explore possible solutions (Burns, Grove & Gray, 2013). According to Polit & Beck (2008), a data collection plan for quantitative studies should yield accurate, valid and meaningful data that are maximally effective in answering research questions.

3.6.1. Data collection instrument

The researcher used a self-designed, structured questionnaire, consisting of 31 closed ended questions, to collect data. Brink et al. (2012) define questionnaires as a self- report instrument where the participants respond to given questions. The questionnaire was developed by the researcher, with the assistance of the research supervisor and a statistician. The questionnaire consisted of three sections. Section A consisted of 8 questions relating to biographic information such as age, gender, highest level of

education, years employed as professional nurse etc. Section B contained 13 questions relating to the knowledge of professional nurses. Section C contained 10 questions relating to the skills and training of professional nurses to manage aggression (see Addendum C).

3.6.2. Pilot study

Brink et al. (2012:174) describes a pilot study as a „small scale study conducted prior to the main study with a limited number of participants‟. It is aimed at investigating the feasibility of the proposed study and detecting possible flaws in the methodology. For the purpose of this study, the questionnaire was pre-tested on ten participants, who also worked at the same hospital where the actual study was conducted. The aim of the pilot study was to check the questionnaire‟s accuracy in capturing the intended information, its reliability and validity as well as the clarity/understandability of the questions. The unclear questions that were identified by the participants were rectified. Those participants who took part in the pilot study were not included in the actual study.

3.6.3 Data collection process

After the proposed study was approved by the University Higher Degree and Senate Research Committee, a letter was submitted to the Hospital Research Ethics Committee at a specific psychiatric hospital in the Western Cape. The participating Hospital Research Ethics Committee granted the permission on condition that the researcher obtained permission from the Department of Health in the Western Cape as well. The researcher forwarded the letter requesting permission from the Department of Health.

After permission was granted, the researcher started the data collection. The data collection continued from December 2014 to January 2015. Prior to data collection, the researcher visited each ward to check the duty roster and prepare a list of all potential participants. The purpose of the study, how participants were selected, the rights of each participant and the possible risk of participating in the study was explained. The participants were advised that taking part in the study was completely voluntary and that their confidentiality as well as anonymity would be protected at all times.

Each participant, on both day and night shift, received an informed consent form, information sheet and questionnaire, along with two empty envelopes. The researcher

explained that once the questionnaire and informed consent forms were completed, they were to be placed in the envelopes for the researcher to collect within 2 days between 12h00 and 15h00. A total of 70 questionnaires were distributed; 54 were returned, of which 2 were incomplete and discarded. Sixteen questionnaires were not returned as participants were either on leave, sick or had decided to withdraw from the study.

3.7. Reliability

Polit & Beck (2012:331) defines reliability as the „consistency with which the instrument measures the targeted attributes‟. „Reliability exists in degrees and is usually expressed as a form of correlation coefficient with 1.00 indicating perfect reliability and 0.00 indicating no reliability‟ (Burns & Grove, 2005:365). A reliability coefficient of 0.80 is considered the lowest acceptable value for a well-developed instrument and for a newly developed instrument; a reliability of 0.70 is considered acceptable (Burns & Grove, 2005). In order to maintain test retest reliability of the questionnaire, the reliability coefficient was set at 0.70. The researcher used the Cronbach Alpha Coefficient, in consultation with a statistician, to test the reliability of the developed questionnaires. The overall Cronbach‟s Alpha for the instrument was 0,721.

Table 1: Reliability of the instrument Scale: All Variables

Case Processing Summary

N %

Cases Valid 10 100.0

Excluded 0 .0

Total 10 100.0

Reliability Statistics

Cronbach's Alpha N of Items

.721 51

3.8. Validity

Polit & Beck (2012) defines validity of the instrument as the degree at which an instrument measures what it is supposed to measure. Face validity refers to „the extent to which an instrument looks as though it is measuring what it purports to measure‟ (Polit & Beck,

2008:753). Face validity was established by consulting the experts in psychiatric nursing science, the supervisor and a statistician to provide feedback regarding the validity of the questionnaire.

Content validity is defined as „the degree to which an instrument covers the scope and range of information that it sought‟ (Brink et al., 2006:200). The questionnaire was reviewed by a statistician, the research ethics committee and the supervisor who all submitted their input. The questionnaire was pre-tested on ten participants that helped to refine the questions for improved meaning, clarity and conceptualisation.