form 1, three from form 2 and two students from form 3. The names of the seven students were then removed from the class registers so that they would not be used in the actual study.
3.5.5 Data Analysis and Data Management of Quantitative Data:
Polit and Beck, (2008) states that the purpose of data analysis is to organize and provide structure to and get meaning from the researched data. The questionnaires obtained from the participants were scrutinized for completeness and illegibility. No interference such as summarization, correction or grammar corrections was attempted. All raw data was assessed for erroneous data; data was then captured on the Statistical Package for Social Sciences Version 15.0. (SPSS 15.0) Frequency distributions, means and Standard Deviations were generated to assess the distribution of the data and where the average knowledge score lay in relation to demographic variables such as age, gender and educational level in school. Descriptive and non- parametric statisticsin the form of a measure of central tendency (i.e. means, standard deviations and range) and Kruskall- Wallis and Mann - Whitney U tests were used to further describe the sample for relationships (similarities or differences between the independent and dependent variables), that is between knowledge scores on the various aspects such as HIV or SRH and demographic variables.
3.6 PROCEDURE FOR QUALITATIVE METHOD
convenient or purposive sampling (Brink, 2006). Bums & Grove, (2005) states the findings from the qualitative results cannot be generalized to the large population since it usually the opinions of a few individuals who may not be representative of the entire population. Convenient sampling was used. The technique is controlled by the researcher regarding subjects that are more suited for the study phenomena or who are fully conversant with the question at hand (Brink, 2006). The method is usually more useful in qualitative study because the researcher cannot determine the number of participants to be interviewed but will continue sampling until data saturation has been reached. Qualitative studies typically focus on relatively small samples purposefully selected because the researcher is concerned with information richness and not representation (Patton, 1990). Thirty adolescents from across all the three levels were selected but only 14 parental responses were received. These were then divided into two groups of focus group discussion by age: one consisting of 6 adolescents of ages 13 to 14 was grouped together while the remaining adolescents of ages 15+ were put together. Only those participants whose parents had signed a consent form were used. The researcher could not continue sampling for more participants to reach data saturation due to the time limitations. Only 14 students were used.
3.6.2 Data Collection Instrument
A semi structured interview guide was developed using the core questionnaire by Cleland et aI., (2004) and this was used as a guide by the researcher during the FGD. The Cleland guide is designed for assessing adolescent's perceptions, and behaviors regarding sexual reproductive health and services. The researcher was free to seek clarifications and to follow issues through in order to obtain maximum information from the participants (Murrell, 1998).
3.6.3Data Collection Procedure
Before the actual data collection was conducted the researcher held meetings with the school head and two heads of departments so that the two heads of departments could inform their colleagues. The meeting was meant to explain the nature of the study and seek permission. The researcher then held a meeting with the entire student body in order to introduce self and explain the purpose of the study. The purpose of this meeting was also to clear up potential areas of misunderstanding and to gain cooperation of both the staff and the participants.
Two focus group discussions lasting about 45 to 60 minutes were held with two different groups of about 8 participants of ages 13-14 and 6 participants of 15+. Participants from each of the three levels of study were represented. The FGD was guided by the focus group discussion guide but the researcher was able to probe and seek for clarifications where necessary. (See Annexure 3 for FGD Guide). The Health Belief Model guided the development of the instrument for focus group discussions and this was used as the template.
The discussions were directed by the researcher and the participants permission to record the proceeding was obtained from the participants at the beggining of each discussion. The focus group discussions were conducted in both English and Setswana, since they are both official languages of the country. Then the interviews were transcribed in English. At the end of each FGD the researcher made notes of a dynamics of the FGD as part of her field notes, paying attention to non-verbal responses of the participants as well as the group dynamics and communication patterns of the participants (Bums& Grove, (2005).
3.6.4 Academic Rigor Qualitative Data
Trustworthiness of the data was ensured by doing member check and peer checking (where a colleague experienced in qualitative data analysis was asked to re analyze the data (Rolfe, 2004).
In this study the data was analyzed by both researchers, i.e. the student and the supervisor.
3.6.4.1 Transferability:
Due to the nature of the data collected, it was not the intension of the researcher to generalize the results of the study, but the results may be transferred to a different context if the other researcher thinks it is applicable.
3.6.5 Data Management
At the beginning of the interview verbal permission was sought from the participants to audio tape the discussion for the purposes of transcribing later. Data was then collected and taped with the consent of the participants and then it was transcribed verbatim (See Annexure 7). Data was cleaned up and rearrange, then the significant statements were identified, these were then aligned to the Health Belief Model. The statements were categorized according to the components of the Health Belief Model namely perceived susceptibility, perceived barriers/ benefits and perceived seriousness. The next step was to cluster the statements according to the broad areas of the conceptual framework which are individual factors, modifying factors and likelihood of change.
Each of these perceptions individually and in combination can be used to explain health behavior. (lones & Bartlett publishers, 2008) from these clusters emerging themes were drawn for discussion.