REGRESIÓN LINEAL DE DATOS OBTENIDOS A PARTIR DE ENSAYO DE

QSR International’s NVIVO 10 software was used to manage qualitative data analysis. The form of analysis used in grounded theory methodology is coding, or the process by which data is segmented, conceptualized, and then reintegrated in new ways (Strauss, & Corbin, 1990). Grounded theory utilizes a constant comparative approach to data analysis, which requires the researcher to continuously make comparisons and ask questions of the data. It is important to note that there are three main coding types but they do not necessarily take place in stages. Strauss and Corbin (1990) explain that the boundaries between each type of coding are artificial and it is easy for coders to move between different types of coding, especially open coding and axial coding, which are discussed below. In addition, while certain forms of coding are more likely to happen towards the beginning of the coding process, they may also occur at the end to clarify or supplement concepts that have emerged. Coding occurs throughout the process of data

collection and each participant’s data were coded as they became available. The principal investigator primarily conducted the coding and another member of the study staff was included as a secondary coder.

Once data collection began, interviews were transcribed immediately to initiate the process of initial open coding, which involves coding the data in multiple different ways to maximize the number of categories that could fit the data (Glaser, 1978). During this stage, coding was conducted line-by-line and major themes or categories consisting of

characteristically similar phenomena were identified and named (Glaser, 1978). Category labels were created using the words or phrases provided by participants in the study to ensure the analysis remained grounded in the data and was not unduly influenced by existing theory.

During axial coding, the focus is on further specifying categories and the conditions under which they occur. The categories identified during open coding were analyzed for their relational properties. Similarities and differences between categories were identified in order to create linkages amongst categories. Similarities and differences within categories were also identified to expand the complexity and depth of more general categories. This involves defining the context, strategies, and consequences that give rise to a category. These aspects are seen as properties of a category and identification of these properties allow the researcher to determine a coding paradigm (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Upon establishing a preliminary coding paradigm, 35% of the data was independently double-coded by two members of the study team to

determine intercoder reliability. Data from each participant was extracted to provide a representative sample of data as opposed to whole transcripts from only a select number of participants (MacPhail, Khoza, Abler, & Ranganathan, 2016; Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson, & Spiers, 2002). Krippendorff’s alpha reliability estimate was then calculated using the KALPHA

macro and a bootstrapped sample of 10,000 (Hayes & Krippendorff, 2007). The result of the intercoder reliability was α = 0.93 [95% CI = 0.87 – 0.98], suggesting sufficient reliability (Krippendorff, 2011).

In selective coding, a core category is selected and related to other categories,

relationships amongst categories are validated, and categories are further refined and developed (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Through this process of integration, a theoretical framework was determined, which addressed Specific Aim 1.

Every participant’s data was open coded and evaluated for fit within the coding paradigm determined by axial coding. When new categories or themes appeared in open coding, they were subjected to the same process of axial coding wherein conditions and properties of a category were identified. In this way, coding was a continuous process that was not time or stage limited. As categories became substantiated and new categories were not emerging from the data

collected, selective coding was undertaken.

Throughout the process of data collection and analysis, memo writing was utilized to track how categories were determined, how connections between categories were

conceptualized, and how emerging themes were progressively integrated. Another method of establishing validity in qualitative methodology is member checking (Guba, 1981). Upon

establishing themes that emerged from the qualitative data, this information was brought back to participants to ensure the researcher’s conceptualization accurately represents the experience of the participant. Attempts were made to conduct member checking with 4 of the 7 participants as 3 of the other participants either did not wish to be contacted or did not provide a phone number. 1 phone number was disconnected and 2 other participants were unable to discuss research over the phone due to logistic reasons or parent preference (e.g., child was not home and child could

not be reached on additional attempts to contact). Therefore, member checking was conducted with 1 participant in-person during the participant’s clinic visit. Categories were first explained to the participant and fidelity to the participant’s experience was solicited. The participant

reported that the categories were representative so no adjustments were made to the categories or definitions. The participant then viewed a rudimentary figure depicting the thematic paradigm and the relationship amongst categories. The participant verified the paradigm, and provided additional statements that supported the conceptualization of the data. These statements will be integrated into the results.