Factores que afectan la eficiencia reproductiva

Prior to the recruitment of participants, an a priori analysis was conducted to determine the required participant sample size. Due to the lack of previous research in this area, a relatively conservative effect size of d = 1.0 was used to constitute a ‘clinically significant’ effect size. Statistical power was specified at the recommended 0.8 and the level of significance at 0.05. The results of this analysis revealed that a minimum of 11 participants would be required in each group to detect this effect size.

84 5.3 Participants

5.3.1 Recruitment

Participants were recruited via a number of approaches. Because correspondence with participants did not require any face-to-face contact during this stage of the study,

participants were able to be recruited over a wider geographical area. First, purposive convenience sampling was used in a similar fashion as in stage one of the study. This involved posting advertisements (see Appendix F.2) at three different locations in

Christchurch City, two locations in North Canterbury and one location in Dunedin. Second, snowball sampling was applied, whereby one participant lead to the next by asking each participant to recommend other family members or friends suitable for participation. Finally, word of mouth recruitment through the avenues of family, friends, co-workers and social media also contributed to the selection of participants.

A total of 34 candidates responded to these recruitment methods. All enquiries were answered with additional information about the study, as well as five questions designed to assess the eligibility of candidates to participate. All interested candidates met the required criteria (table 6) to be included in this study. However, two participants failed to respond to contact attempts after they initially registered interest in participating, and thus 32

participants comprised the final sample size. Upon inclusion in the study, each participant was randomly assigned to read either (1) the unrevised report or (2) the revised report.

85 5.3.2 Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Table 6. Participant inclusion and exclusion criteria, Stage three: Verification

With the exception of the second exclusion criterion, the same inclusion and exclusion criteria used during the evaluation stage of the study were also applied for the verification stage. This was rationalised because validating the revision process involved evaluating the comprehension, self-efficacy and perceptions of parents after they read the report. Thus, to produce externally applicable results, it was necessary to recruit a group of participants similar to parents likely to encounter audiology reports in reality. Consequently, the justifications behind the exclusion and inclusion criteria described in stage one of the study remained valid for stage three.

The additional exclusion criterion included for the verification stage was developed to restrict participation from candidates who are not native speakers of the English language. This criterion is often employed within the health literacy literature in an attempt to minimise the confounding effect of language skills on comprehension (Miller et al., 2009; Parker, Baker, Williams, & Nurss, 1995).

5.4 Procedures

To assess the hypotheses relating to the revised report improving parent

comprehension, self-efficacy and positive perceptions, a randomised experimental design was employed where participants were assigned to read either the unrevised or revised version of

Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria

Parent of at least one child aged between 0-5 years

Aged over 18 years

Willing and able to read a hypothetical diagnostic report and complete a questionnaire

Prior experience with HI or audiology/ENT services, either personally, or via a family member

86

the report. In contrast to a repeated measures study design, this design had the advantage of minimising possible practice effects which may have affected the validity of the

comprehension or perceptions measurements.

All interested candidates who responded to recruitment strategies were screened to ensure they met the specified study selection criteria. Once eligibility was confirmed,

candidates began the study in one of two formats, depending on their method of recruitment. The seven participants who responded to advertisements placed at preschools were randomly assigned an opaque, sealed envelope from the preschool manager. Each envelope was numbered, thereby assigning each participant an identification number. The envelope contained four items: (1) an information sheet (Appendix F.3) (2) a consent form (Appendix F.4) (3) a demographic questionnaire (Appendix F.5) and (4) a cloze procedure designed for either the unrevised or the revised report (Appendix F.6 and Appendix F.7, respectively). Because the envelopes were sealed, randomly ordered, and contained no revealing information, all managers and participants were blinded to which report version was

assigned. Participants were asked to read the information sheet and to sign the consent form if they agreed to participate in the study. Each consent form also provided participants an opportunity to indicate if they would like to receive a copy of the version of the report that they were not assigned at the completion of the study. Next, participants were asked to complete the demographic questionnaire, and then attempt the cloze test by filling in each blank with the word they considered to be the best fit. Participants then returned their

completed cloze test, their consent form and their demographic questionnaire to the preschool where the study was initiated.

At this point, the preschool manager provided each participant a second envelope with the same number as the first envelope. This system ensured that the correct version of the

87

report was given to each participant, in addition to a verification questionnaire (Appendix F.8) and a voucher retrieval form. Participants were asked to read the report as if it was written for their own child and then wait 24 hours before completing the questionnaire. Although this request relied on participant honesty, it was employed to try and create a more accurate perspective of parental comprehension, minimising the simple recital of recently read information. After completing the questionnaire, participants returned this and their voucher retrieval form in the provided postage-paid addressed return envelope.

For the other 25 participants, random assignment to read either the unrevised or revised report was achieved by flipping a coin. A ‘heads’ outcome assigned the participant to read the unrevised report, whereas a ‘tails’ result assigned the participant to read the revised report, abiding by the caveat that equal numbers were required in each group. Following group allocation, participants were emailed an information sheet and their allocated version of the cloze procedure. Participants were instructed to complete the cloze test by typing in the word they thought would most appropriately fill each blank, before returning their completed test via email. Email was used to improve the efficiency of data collection for these

participants.

Within 48 hours of receiving their returned cloze test, an information packet was mailed to each participant. Five items were included in each packet: (1) another copy of the study’s information sheet, (2) a consent form, (3) a demographic questionnaire, (4) the participant’s allocated version of the report, (5) the verification questionnaire, (6) a voucher retrieval form, and (7) a postage-paid addressed return envelope. Participants were instructed to read the information sheet, and sign the consent form if they felt the study requirements were acceptable. Participants then read the report and completed the two questionnaires in the same manner as the preschool participants above. Finally, participants were instructed to

88

return their consent form, two questionnaires and the completed voucher retrieval form in the provided postage-paid addressed return envelope.

Once the complete dataset was received for each participant, they were renumerated for their time and participation through a $10 voucher. The voucher was sent to the

participant alongside the other version of the report if the participant requested this on their consent form. A personalised debriefing sheet (Appendix F.9) was also sent to each parent, which served to explain which report the participant was assigned to read, as well as the years of education required to read that version.