Identificación de la evidencia y tipo de análisis al que se somete

well as the role of leadership in the sustainability of the GPA program in rural LTC homes that had completely installed the program. Although not aimed at developing a theory, since the study was guided by the i-PARIHS framework, the retrospective study was informed by the

constructivist approach to grounded theory defined by Charmaz (2006).

2.4.1.5.1 Constructivist approach to data analysis. In the constructivist approach, analyses are viewed as mutually constructed interpretations as opposed to facts discovered by a neutral expert observer. The data were analyzed using the constant comparative method in which the researcher compares and contrasts the data, the codes that are identified, and then the larger categories in the analysis (Charmaz, 2006). Comparisons are made between incidents within interviews and interviews conducted at different times, or incidents across cases. By doing this, the researcher develops analytic properties within the categories and these categories are

continually examined throughout the data analysis phase of the case study (Charmaz, 2006). The analyses were aimed at identifying relationships between facilitation (and leadership) and

sustainability of the GPA program.

The first step in analyzing the data was to code the interviews and focus groups by giving the participants’ words an interpretive meaning. “Qualitative codes take segments of data apart, name them in concise terms, and propose an analytic handle to develop abstract ideas for interpreting each segment of data” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 45). The researcher ensured that codes were closely connected (grounded) to the data and did not force pre-conceived thoughts or ideas on the data. Charmaz (2006)describes two main phases of coding. Initial codes are provisional in that the researcher stays open to other possibilities that may evolve out of the data. Initial coding allows the researcher to test ideas, identify gaps in the data, and remain open to other factors that may be related to the problem that is being studied. During the initial coding,

incident to incident coding comparison was conducted for the semi-structured interviews and the focus groups (Charmaz, 2006). This type of coding allows the researcher to initially examine incident against incident within the interviews and focus groups.

Focused coding is the next step in the analysis process, and involves using the most significant or frequent initial codes to “sort, synthesize, integrate, and organize large amounts of data” (Charmaz, 2006, p.46). Focused coding is more specific in nature and it requires the

76

researcher to make decisions about the codes that make the most sense in categorizing the data. Focused coding allowed the researcher to check her ideas about the preconceived notions that she may have had about the data. Memo-writing was used to capture the emerging analyses as coding was conducted. These analytic notes helped the researcher to think about the data, and provide a place to document ideas from the constant comparative process (Charmaz, 2006). During the focused coding, the writer compared the codes from each interview against other interviews within each home. For example, the codes of the interviews in Home 1 (GPA Coach, RN, manager, and CNL) were all compared against each other. This allowed the researcher to identify if there were similarities or differences for the various participant groups within each home as it related to facilitation, leadership, and sustainability. Second, the interview codes of each participant group were compared across five homes (i.e., codes from each GPA Coach interview were compared against each other, and each administrator, DOC, and manager were compared against each other across the five homes). Third, the interview codes from each participant group across the five homes were compared across and against each other (i.e., codes from the interviews from the GPA Coaches from all five homes against the codes from all RN interviews). Fourth, the codes from each focus group were compared across and against each other (i.e., the codes from focus group one were compared against focus group two). Finally, the codes from the focus groups were compared against the codes from the participant groups in the interview groups. When focused coding was completed, the number of initial codes had

decreased, and it allowed the researcher to “condense the data and provide a handle on them” (Charmaz, 2006, p. 59). Data charts and poster boards were used to visualize the data in order to compare and contrast the differences and similarities across groups, homes, and data collection procedures.

The researcher completed all data analysis for the retrospective study and the prospective study without the use of computer software. As the researcher transcribed all of the interviews and focus groups on her own, she was very comfortable and familiar with working with the paper documents. After transcription by the researcher, all interviews and focus groups were revisited frequently during the coding process. Initial coding was completed prior to conducting interviews and focus groups in the next home.

77

2.4.1.5.2 Within-case and cross-case analysis. These analyses will be described in depth after the description of the prospective study. The analysis strategy was consistent across the retrospective and prospective studies.