Introduction
The purpose of this interpretive phenomenological study was to explore how middle school children with ASD perceive their APE experience. The phenomenon studied was middle school children with ASD’s perception of their experience in APE. This chapter presents the research design and rationale for the study and discusses the role of the researcher. In the next section, I present the methodology of this qualitative study and address issues of trustworthiness.
Research Design and Rationale
The motivation for the study was the need to hear directly from middle school children with ASD regarding their APE experience. To this end, semistructured interviews, drawings by the participants, and descriptive observations were used to explore the following research questions:
The primary research question was, What are the feelings and perceptions of middle school children with ASD regarding their APE experiences from their perspective? The study also examined three subquestions:
1. How do children with ASD interpret their experience in APE?
2. What insight can be gained from these experiences that can inform how teachers and staff support middle school children with ASD in their APE experience?
3. What patterns (if any) are shared across the examined cases for children with ASD in APE?
The central concepts of the phenomenological study were middle school students with ASD and their perceptions of APE. I identified middle school children as those who were attending school full-time in either a special day class or a mainstream setting. A child was defined as having autism if (a) a trained professional had diagnosed him or her as such using the Autism Diagnostic Observation Scale (ADOS; 1 or 2) and (b) the student’s diagnosis was confirmed by his or her parents when presented with the question “Has your son or daughter been diagnosed with ASD using the ADOS (1 or 2) by a trained professional?” during his or her intake into the study. The ADOS is an assessment tool commonly used in the United States to determine whether a child has autism or pervasive developmental disorder and is administered by a trained professional (Western Psychological Society, 2015).
For the present study, a qualitative phenomenological approach—specifically, IPA—was the most appropriate. Phenomenology aims to examine a shared experience of participants in a given phenomenon as well as the meaning that the participants’ attribute to the measured experience (Hammersley, 2004). IPA looks to find the meaning in the participants’ experience and then assign meaning based on the current literature (Smith et al., 2009).
Other qualitative methods did not seem appropriate for the present study. A grounded theory study was not appropriate because the intent of this type of study is to generate or discover theory related to the phenomenon being studied (Creswell, 1998). Ethnography was not appropriate for the study because it was not designed to interpret a cultural group or system (Creswell, 1998). Though there is a growing argument in the
field of ASD for the autistic community to have their own identity, similar to the deaf community, this is currently not the case. Therefore, autism is not yet identified as a cultural group that would be served by an ethnographic study. A case study was not appropriate because the aim of this research was to study a phenomenon through multiple experiences to understand its essence, not to simply study multiple cases (Creswell, 1998). To single out one case of ASD in APE when more children with ASD can be identified to examine a phenomenon through multiple experiences does not make a case study an appropriate fit. Furthermore, case studies examine all the aspects of a given case and the many stakeholders (Patton, 2002). The aim of this specific study was to examine how children with ASD interpret their experience, and I was not interviewing other stakeholders who were involved in this experience because I was aiming to identify and give voice specifically to children with ASD. Finally, a biographical study was not appropriate because the study examined a very small part of the participants’ life, not their entire lifetime (Creswell, 1998). Narratives examine an individual’s experience over a period of time and take on a story-like fashion (Patton, 2002). This study emphasized the perspective of the child with ASD, and, as such, I highlighted aspects of their
experience; however, I was not turning it into a story, so a narrative study would not have served this study’s purpose.
Role of the Researcher
As the researcher for the present study, I was the instrument for collecting data, as is the tradition in phenomenological research design (Creswell, 1998). I solely sought out and interviewed the participants and then analyzed their data. Though I had previous
professional interactions and relationships with some of the participants, I had no direct personal or professional relationship with the participants within 2 years prior to or during the present study. I understand that my pervious experiences might bias my perception of the participants’ experiences. To minimize bias, I journaled throughout the study to log and better understand my personal experience (Creswell, 1998; Smith et al., 2009).
I did not select participants for the study with whom I was already serving in other settings. I had APE teachers identify children who were receiving their APE services and who also had an ASD diagnosis. A cover letter was sent to the parents of these children regarding my study so that they could contact me if they were interested in participating. This approach avoided biasing the sample selection based on my potential familiarity with the participants.
I did not use an environment in which I had authority (either prior to or during the study), so power differentials were not a concern. I did not provide incentives for
participation in the study. The assent and consent forms provided to both the participants and their parents, respectively, clarified that they could end their participation in the study at any time and that, in doing so, they would face no repercussions in the school district or with future potential services in the region. I journaled throughout my study and examined other unforeseen ethical considerations as they arose.
Methodology Participant Selection Logic
The population for the study was purposefully selected by first identifying children with ASD in APE who wanted to participate in the study and, from that participant pool, identifying children with ASD in APE who further fit the study’s criteria. This method is common in qualitative research to identify shared experiences among a homogenous sample of participants (Patton, 2007). This method addressed the described phenomenon by following an IPA approach (Smith et al., 2009). Families of participants who were interested in participating contacted me after receiving a flier describing the purpose of the research from their child’s APE teacher. The participants in the study were middle school children, ages 10 to 14 years old, with ASD, who were receiving APE services within one school district located in Northern California. Permission was granted by the school district to conduct the study (see Appendix A).
The selection criteria for the study included (a) a current diagnosis of ASD by a qualified professional, (b) current attendance at a middle school in the selected school district, (c) ability to communicate verbally, (d) current receipt of APE service, and (e) verification of the ASD diagnosis by the child’s parents. The child’s ability to
communicate verbally was determined during my preliminary meeting with the participants and their parents to explain the study. After the participant and parent assented and consented to the study, and before beginning data collection with the drawing prompt, I asked the child to take the TNR–Second Grade (Spencer & Pearson, 2012). The TNR is a screening tool that can be used to assess a child’s narrative retell
abilities, and the tool is freely available for reuse (see Appendix B). I followed the screening protocol and accepted a narrative retell score of “no additional language support” or “supplemental language support” as evidence of narrative ability at a level sufficient for this study. I have worked with a wide range of individuals with ASD for over 13 years in both clinical and natural settings and have experience in waiting for communication to be reciprocated, re-asking questions, and talking with children in a way that makes them feel comfortable. Current grade level and attendance in APE services were established via verbal confirmation from both the parent and the child.
Qualitative research yields data that are rich in content, so sample sizes that are too large make data analysis challenging. Smith et al. (2009) recommended that IPA studies for “Ph.D. student researchers have between four and ten interviews, not participants” (p. 52). In a meta-synthesis of 33 qualitative studies for individuals with ASD’s lived experiences and perspectives by DePape and Lindsay (2015), four focused on children with ASD, with sample sizes ranging from seven to 14 participants. The present study had a sample size of 10 participants. The rationale for this sample size was that it fell within the range of samples in similar studies and would provide data sufficient to generalize across participants.
I created fliers (see Appendix C) outlining the study and delivered them to no fewer than six APE teachers in the school district. These teachers then sent the fliers home with students with ASD who were receiving APE services. Fliers that are sent home to parents are a common means of communicating information in this district. In this flier, I briefly highlighted the purpose of the study, provided a brief biography about
myself, and described the inclusion criteria for this study. I provided my phone number and asked interested parents to contact me about participating in the study.
When interested parents phoned me regarding the study, I provided them with an in-depth overview of the study, including a timeline for the study, and reconfirmed the inclusion criteria. Based on the information provided in the phone conversation, I notified the child’s parents if they were eligible or ineligible to participate in the study. Once the eligible prospective participants were identified, an appointment was made to meet with the child and his or her parents at their home. Home is frequently a place where service providers meet to provide services to children with ASD (Leutz, Warfield, Timberlake, & Chiri, 2015). Meeting at the family’s home provided a sense of comfort to the
participants because they met someone new; the home visit also provided anonymity to the child with ASD because other people could not overhear the conversation and attach a stigma, such as might happen in school or another public place. At this time, parents and child were provided with both the consent and assent forms (see Appendices D and E, respectively). I reviewed the interview format, which was outlined on the consent and assent forms, with the child and parent, making sure to address any and all concerns and questions they had regarding the study. The parents and child were provided with the time they needed to read through the forms and then, if they were willing to participate, they were asked to sign the forms.
Each participant received two interviews—in the first interview, the child narrated the picture they drew about their APE experience. The second interview was an in-depth semistructured interview with open-ended questions about their experiences and feelings
regarding APE, creating 20 interviews total. I expected each interview to last 25 to 50 minutes depending on the needs of the child and the depth of the responses. This time expectation was based on methods used by Kirby et al. (2015). In addition to these interviews, all participants provided a drawing to illustrate their APE experience during their second interview, and I took descriptive observation notes during the participants’ APE class.
A study must ensure that enough subjects participate to ensure that the research purpose is fully addressed. Saturation occurs when a researcher “finds information to add until no more information can be found” (Creswell, 1998, p. 56) or when data across interviews reveal the same patterns. If a sample is too small, then patterns do not develop; if a sample is too large, there can be too much data to manage. Although this study’s sample was small, it reflected the topic being studied, and the homogenous and purposeful sampling approach helped create a saturated set of data.
Instrumentation
I used three methods of data collection. First, the participants illustrated their experience in APE using the prompt “draw me what your adapted physical education class is like.” I then asked the child to describe his or her picture to me. This data collection method added a nonverbal interpretation of the child’s APE experience and provided a format that allowed the children with ASD to describe their APE experience in another way.
Second, I observed the participants in their APE class and took descriptive notes. Rather than allowing the participants to narrate their experiences without a direct
observation of the child in APE, collecting data in this way provided a context in which the participants were sharing their stories. This allowed me to triangulate their interviews and drawing by checking if how they described their experience in APE was in alignment with what was taking place in APE. I positioned myself in the classroom or outside space in a manner that was not intrusive or distracting. I used a pen and paper to collect these data so as not to distract the children with a computer or typing. The data sheet included a column for information about motor activities as well as a second column for behaviors and subjective observations. Each column was broken down into 1-minute increments and data were collected for the duration of their time during the APE observation.
Finally, I employed semistructured, in-person interviews with participants. The interview questions (described in the following pages and listed in Appendix F) were created to address the research questions that were used for this study. Because these interviews were conducted using interview questions created by me, the questions were sent to three researchers in the field of physical education and ASD to establish their content validity. All three researchers had experience in interviewing individuals with ASD as well as motor research as established by their publications on both topics in peer- reviewed journals. I conducted the interviews to limit variability in interviewing
strategies between participants, and each participant was asked the questions in the same order, further limiting variability. All interviews were audio recorded.
Each of these data collection methods helped address the second research subquestion: What insight can be gained from these experiences that can inform how teachers and staff support middle school children with ASD in their APE experience?
These three data collection methods allowed me to gain insight from these experiences (Research Subquestion 2) and determine if there is a shared experience of middle school children in APE (Research Subquestion 3). Children are able to recall and describe events in interviews with consistency when these events are reoccurring (Brubacher, Powell, & Roberts, 2014) and this form of data collection in conjunction with drawing their
experience was selected to allow for the participants’ creative reflection. Each of the methods described above were reflective and allowed multiple modalities of sharing the child’s experience. The study did not use any legal or historical documents.
Drawings. Drawing offers another medium for participants to express their
feelings and perceptions on a topic or situation. Darbyshire, MacDougall, and Schiller (2005) stated that “various approaches complement rather than duplicate and enable the expression of different aspects of the children’s experiences” (p. 430) when using
multiple modes of data collection that are different than what a researcher would use with adults. Drawings have been used successfully with nondisabled children to express their perception of the environment regarding movement opportunities at home and school (Hume, Salmon, & Ball, 2005). In the present study, a prompted drawing by the participants was added to the data to offer a richer description of the participants’ perceptions of their APE experience and to complement the interview and observation data.
Observation sheet. Observation of activity by the researcher is a means of
collecting data on what a participant is doing within a setting. For this study, I was an observer. This is described by Pitney and Parker (2009) as nonparticipatory in nature and
ensures there is enough time during the observation to document activities of the participant as they occur. This observation sheet was divided into 1-minute increments and had categories for both direct observation of what was physically occurring as well as a second (“other”) category for me to make notes of behavior or other subjective remarks (see Appendix G).
Interview protocol. I developed the semistructured interview questions based on
current autism research and established best practices. The semistructured interview questions consisted of four initial rapport-building questions that were straightforward and that the participants could answer confidently, followed by 14 open-ended questions that were specific to their experiences within the APE setting. These questions were reviewed by experts in the field to determine content validity, and I was the only person who conducted the interviews to limit variability in the interview process. Rapport- building questions are typical in the phenomenological interview process to create an atmosphere that is relaxing for the participant and builds trust between the researcher and the participant (Brown, 2015; Moustakas, 1994). An example rapport-building question is, “what did you do today?” or “what is that you are playing with?” The open-ended questions were descriptive, narrative, evaluative, and comparative and included follow-up prompts and probes as is necessary with phenomenological interview questions (Smith et al., 2009). An example open-ended question is, “what is your adapted physical education class with teacher like?” These research questions were reviewed by three professionals who had experience using qualitative researcher methods, interviewing individuals with
disabilities, and working with children with ASD for both content validity and credibility of the interview questions in answering the research questions.
Procedures for Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection
After fliers regarding information about the study were sent home to the
prospective participants and their families, parents contacted me if they were interested in learning more about the study. During a phone conversation with the parents of the child to discuss the study, the prospective participant’s parents were notified if their child was eligible to participate in the study. I met eligible children at their home to provide assent and consent forms and to answer any questions that they have. If they agreed to
participate in the study, I worked with the family to set a schedule, during which, over the course of a 2-week period, the student was asked to draw their experiences, be observed in their APE class, and then be interviewed. The first data collection (drawing with prompt and explanation) occurred after the child was screened using the TNR and took place in the child’s home immediately following the signing of the consent and assent forms. I then observed the children in their APE setting at school. The third and final data collection point (semistructured interview) occurred in the child’s home after the drawing and observation occurred. The interviews were not held during school hours. Both the drawing description and interview were audio recorded and occurred within a 2-week period. Each lasted approximately 30 minutes, totaling an hour—the recommended time frame for semistructured interviews (Smith et al., 2009).
The drawing prompt was “Draw what your adapted physical education class is