Resultados de la fiscalización - Observaciones comunes

Thefollowingframeworkwillservetodiscussthetestingofthe measuringinstrument:  description of the instrument

 sampling design

 sampling method and size

 administrationofthe instrument, post-testquestionnaires and a 10-minutediscussion  results of the testing of the measuring instrument (SDS) according to the analysis of

135

5.3.1.1 Pre-testing the items using the Semantic Differential Scale (SDS)

5.3.1.1.1 Description of the SDS instrument

A Semantic Differential Scale (SDS) and a number of items which respondents had to rank in order of preference (using a 1 to 7 scale) was the questionnaire format in which the items were contained. The differential and ranking scales were implemented for the enhancement of validityandreliabilityof themeasuring instrument(SDSquestionnaire). They can provide for finer measuring and are easy to construct, administer and to score (Burns & Grove 2009:412; DeVos et al 2011:212-213; Polit & Beck 2012:302).

A Semantic Differential Scale (SDS) seemed to be an obvious choice for the study, as the study leant towards a dichotomous nature, in this case between a supportive and a defensive communication climate within the public hospitals. Thus questions and/or items reflecting this dichotomous nature were required.

Statements constructed for the SDS formed the basis of the questionnaire. This scale is designed in such a way as to afford the respondents the opportunity to make a comparison between two items located on either side of the set statements and then choose either item (see Figure 5.1). Thus the pairs of items create a cognitive frame of mind within which the respondents had to make a choice. The two items indicated either a supportive or a defensive communication climate focus as maintained by respondents. The item pairs, as indicated previously, are synchronised with the dualistic and comparative nature of the Gibb’s conceptual model on which the study is based. The researcher numbered the spaces on the scale of the measuring instrument (SDS) so as to award respondents an opportunity to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statement on the instrument.

Two sets of items were constructed within the SDS questionnaire (see Annexure E). The first set of items tested the respondents’ communication behaviour (PN items), indicating their behaviour orientation regarding each conceptual continuum. An example of such a communication behaviour statement pair is item pair 14, where the respondents choose between the items Always or Never for the statement: “I ... use straightforward language during conversations with others in my ward/unit”.

136

In the second set of items (operational manager items), the researcher rephrased the previous items to test the respondent’s perception of the communication behaviour orientation of operational managers asindicated by the six conceptual continuums. An example of such a perception statement pair is item pair 20 (corresponding to item pair 14), where respondents choose between the items Always or Never for the statement: “Theoperationalmanagerinchargeofmyward/unit…….uses straightforward language”.

It is advantageous to use the Semantic Differential Scale (SDS) because it is relatively simple to construct, administer and score. However, the disadvantage is that low Cronbach’s Alpha scores are normally obtained with the use of SDS instruments (Tavakol & Dennick 2011:54), due to a low number of items or the poor interrelatedness of items.

5.3.1.1.2 Discussion of the instrument prior to the pre-test study

Before pre-testing the instrument using the Semantic Differential Scale, the researcher discussed the instrument with the Delphi panel, the language editor and the statistician. They suggested the following changes to the instrument:

 The Delphi panel members suggested that the font used on the instrument should be enlarged to accommodate respondents.

 The language editor suggested that second-language speakers might find some of the terminology on the questionnaire difficult and such terminology should be eliminated or replaced by more comprehendible terminology.

 The statistician suggested that the researcher reduce the number of questions from the original 120 questions to 70 questions, by eliminating questions that had similar meanings to others, in order to simplify the statistical analysis of the constructs and to increase the reliability of the instrument.

5.3.1.1.3 Sampling design used for the pre-testing of the SDS instrument

To enhance the validity, reliability and representativeness of the SDS measuring instrument, a random sampling design was selected (Brink et al 2012:134; Polit & Beck 2012:738).

137

5.3.1.1.4 Sampling method and size used for the pre-testing of the SDS instrument

A simple, random sample method was used to select the population for this pre-test study. The sampling frame consisted of all professional nurses in a selected public hospital in the Gauteng province. Thirty respondents, who met the sample eligibility criteria (see section 4.5.1.1) were then selected at random. A consecutively numbered name list of professional nurses obtained from the human resources department of this public hospital assisted in checking the eligibility of the population (Polit & Beck 2012:743).

5.3.1.1.5 Administration of the SDS instrument during the pre-testing

The researcher adhered to all the principles of proper questionnaire administration during the pre-test study. The researcher created a climate for the respondents which was conducive to the successful administration of a questionnaire, by ensuring a safe psychological and physical climate (see section 4.5.2.2.3). On a pre-arranged date, the draft SDS questionnaires were administered simultaneously to small groups of between two and five respondents in a private venue. A post-pre-test questionnaire was completed by respondents immediately after they had completed the SDS instrument and finally a 10-minute discussion was held.