When developing a new measurement instrument, it is useful to “test it” by “means of a pilot study” before administering it to the actual sample of study. This process of testing entails administering the instrument to a limited number of subjects from the same population as that for which the eventual project is intended (Babbie, 2002: 129). The purpose of the pilot study, according to Gravetter and Forzano (2009), is to detect possible flaws in the measurement procedure, to identify unclear or ambiguously formulated items and to give the researcher the opportunity to notice non-verbal cues that may possibly indicate discomfort and
embarrassment about the content or wording of the questions.
They explain that, “possible errors in the measurement procedure may include among others ambiguous instructions and inadequate time limits” (ibid: 117). To rule out all these concerns, the interview guidelines were piloted to establish whether or not the questions were
comprehensible, and also the length of time that would be required to conduct the meetings.
Thus, two pilot studies were conducted. One was done with the National University of Lesotho Adult Education diploma students, from the Institute of Extra Mural Studies (IEMS) in Maseru. The second pilot was done with the Lesotho Agricultural College in Maseru.
The intention was to initially conduct the pilot with the IEMS students only. A group had been identified, as an ideal group for the pilot study, of about eleven third year students that at one time were used to hold their group discussions near my workplace. The group consisted of eleven members, six females and five males. But before approaching them I telephonically contacted the National University of Lesotho’s Institute of Extra Mural Studies Adult Education diploma course coordinator to find out what was required to use these students to pilot this study. She promised to consult with the head of the Adult Education Department.
Her consultation yielded positive results and the group was immediately approached for their assistance, after which they granted permission. After they had agreed to assist, an orientation meeting was arranged so that the purpose of this study could be explained. The explanation included: my name and the names of my supervisors, why it was important to have that orientation meeting, the purpose of the study, why they had been chosen to participate,
119 whether or not they were obliged to take part, what would happen to them if they took part, whether or not their taking part in the study would be kept confidential, what will happen to the results after the study, who was organizing and funding the study and who had reviewed the study. This explanation ended by providing the institute and the learners with the contact details of my lead supervisor, should they have needed to discuss any concerns regarding the conduct of this research project. At the end of the meeting, together we set up dates and times for the next three meetings, which were to be held at IEMS.
Despite the fact that attendance at the orientation meeting was not good, it continued with those that were available (six out of eleven). The meeting lasted for about thirty minutes, which was sufficient time for the participants to fully understand what was expected of them and what they could expect from me. From this, I was then able to estimate the amount of time needed for the actual orientation meetings. This meeting also gave me a ‘feel’ for how to conduct this kind of meeting. The orientation sheet was not only discussed for the purposes of sharing information, but also for the purpose of informing the learners about the pilot study before asking for their consent.
We met again after four days to continue the first group discussion. On this occasion, nine participants were on time, while the other two arrived late. Due to time limitations only one material (poster) was discussed, as the meeting was held after working hours (5pm). A new date and time for another meeting was arranged, but never materialized, again because of the poor turnout (only three learners). However, a month later, an individual interview was held with a gentleman who had shown interest and was always there for the discussions. This interview also helped to estimate the length of time needed for the one-to-one interviews. No comments from the pilot study were included, as they did not raise anything different from what the other respondents had said. Upon failing to complete the pilot with the IEMS students, it was necessary to look for other avenues. Therefore the registrar at the Lesotho Agricultural College (LAC) was contacted telephonically to find out the requirements for using their students to pilot the study. A requisition in writing was requested, which was done and delivered on the same day. Permission was then sought and obtained from the Lesotho
120 Agricultural College (Maseru), as this institution was not participating in the main study, to interview eight to ten of their second year learners. To enhance the authorities’ understanding of the nature and purpose of the pilot study, I attached the information sheet, which was intended to be used use as a basis for soliciting the respondents’ verbal informed consent before the actual interviews. Interview guidelines were also attached to the requisition letter (see Appendix l) as it was requested by the registrar during preliminary telephonic
conversation. A positive response was granted a week later. However, the first meeting was held almost three weeks later as the school took some time to identify the learners for the pilot study. A 30 minute orientation meeting with eight students (four males and four females) was held to discuss the fact sheet. To make certain that individuals in the population were
adequately represented, the group was made up of equal number of males and females. The first meeting was successfully conducted in March and the second one, which was
immediately followed by the individual interviews, was conducted in April.
Results from the pilot study revealed neither errors nor ambiguities in the instruments except that they took much longer than had previously been anticipated. The first FGD was expected to take one and half to two hours of the respondents’ time. Unfortunately, it lasted for far more than three hours. The same thing happened with the individual interviews; they lasted more than one hour thirty minutes, whereas they were each anticipated to take one hour or less. This forced me to cut down the amount of content in one of the research materials. This was done on the pamphlet, as it contained information which could be read independently from the remaining content. That is, the first three folders of the pamphlet explained what is meant by voluntary counselling and testing. This deliberated on the importance of knowing one’s HIV status, who should test for HIV, what happens when one has a negative or positive status;
whilst the other three folders explained the process undertaken during the voluntary testing and counselling. The pilot aided the adjustment of time for the discussions and the drawing up of a strategy that could best keep the discussions alive, as they were still going to be long, with an estimated time frame of about two hours. After drawing up the new strategy, efforts to collect data were embarked on. The subsequent paragraphs deliberates on the stages that were taken to collect data.
121