CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY
4.6 RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS
4.6.2 Validity and reliability of the questionnaires
therapist assistant who had a working relationship with the residents and was to be a research assistant.
The survey respondents were exposed to the same process as the pilot study respondents, being an orientation session, time to ask questions and an opportunity to consent to participation, followed by participation. The researcher met concurrently with the staff and resident respondents selected for the pilot study.
Despite consideration having been given to possible differing abilities in ease of completion of the questionnaire, no apparent difference was evident. All three respondents required the researcher to be available to answer questions, finishing at different times which was due to the amount of reminiscing that the questions triggered and the depth of conversation that followed. The amount of reminiscing appeared greater in the females as opposed to the male. The questionnaires were completed in 40 minutes, which was within the anticipated time of 30 – 45 minutes.
The staff completed their questionnaires in 15 minutes which was less time than the anticipated 20 minutes. As changes were made to the questionnaire, despite not many, these persons were excluded from the total number of respondents.
The changes to the staff and residents’ questionnaires were few. The changes made to the staff and the residents’ questionnaires were based on their ability to understand the questions. These are laid out in Appendix 3 (Changes to questionnaires following pilot study). Both groups were unsure of the type of cellphone they owned, hence given that the primary aim of this question was to identify their readiness to access the internet through a smart phone the question was simplified to: “Does your cellphone allow internet access?” This allowed for the gathering of the required data. In both questionnaires there was difficulty by both groups of respondents to understand the requirements of rank ordering the technologically assisted communication. This was simplified into two choices, namely that of “most appeal” and that of “least appeal”. Both groups felt that similar responses were required from the questions, “ How easy is it for you to use each of the communication devices listed below? “ and “How competent do you feel using each of the communication devices listed below?” Consequently “ease of use” was
residents’ questionnaire alone. These were firstly, due to the ages of the residents.
The term “great grandchildren” was added alongside grandchildren when enquiring about the social networks and about social connectedness. Secondly, questions 3.1.b: “Have you been involved in cultural groups outside the residence in the last three months?” and 3.1.c: “Have you been involved in social or community activities outside the residence in the last three months?” were merged into one question:
“Have you been involved in cultural, social or community groups outside the residence in the last 3 months?”. This was due to pilot study respondents’ difficulty in differentiating between social, community and cultural activities. Thirdly, discussion ensued in relation to the logistics of landline use and it was decided to omit this as an option in questions relating to technological readiness, as logistics was not being tested but it was kept to identify information about respondents’ access to communication.
Validity: Face validity was achieved to the extent of agreement of the research supervisor with items included in the questionnaire, as well as through review by experts. Firstly there was review by research specialists and mental health nurse specialists upon verbal presentation of the proposal to the University of KwaZulu- Natal, School of Nursing. Initially the researcher planned to acquire further approval of the questionnaire by a psychiatrist with expertise in gerontology, however at the time of requiring this approval the psychiatrist was not available and a nurse expert was approached, who reviewed the questionnaire (See Appendix 5: Face validity).
The feedback from these experts was used to make changes to the residents’
questionnaire. The nurse specialist was concerned about the older persons’
decreased ability to understand the technological language. This was addressed through demonstrations in the orientation sessions (Polit & Beck, 2006).
Content validity: Content validity was achieved for both questionnaires in terms of the conceptual framework, the objectives and the literature (Table 5: Content validity of the residents’ questionnaire and Table 6: Content validity of the staff questionnaire).
Table 5: Content validity of the residents’ questionnaire
Research Objective
Framework for the study
Research Question number
Resident’s questionnaire number
Research studies
1. To describe the level of individual social capital and mental wellbeing in older persons residing in a residential facility.
Social and mental health outcomes
1.6.1.1 1.6.1.2 1.6.1.3 1.6.1.4
1;4;5;6 Cornwell & Waite, 2009; de Jong Gierveld, 1998; de Jong Gierveld et al., 2006; Golden et al., 2009; Luanaigh &
Lawlor, 2008 Social networks:
network structure
1.6.1.2 1.6.1.3
2;3 Cornwell et al., 2008; PRI, 2005;
Keating et al., 2004; van Groenou et al., 2012; Wright, 2000
Social
connectedness
1.6.1.3 3 Cornwell et al., 2008;
Cornwell & Waite, 2009; Drageset, 2004;
PRI, 2005: Wright, 2000.
Individual and group determinants
1.6.1.1 1.6.1.3 1.6.1.4
1;3;4; 5; 6 de Jong Gierveld, 1998; Drageset et al., 2011; Golden et al., 2009; Keating et al., 2004; Luanaigh & Lawlor, 2008 2.To evaluate the
technological readiness in terms of technologically assisted
communication in older persons residing in a residential facility
External variables 1.6.2.1 1.6.2.3
1; 7.1 Chung et al., 2010; Davis, 1989; Nahm et al., 2003; van Biljon
& Renaud, 2009 Perceived ease of
use
1.6.2.2 1.6.2.3
1; 7.2.1 Chung et al., 2010; Davis, 1989; van Biljon & Renaud, 2009
Perceived
usefulness
1.6.2.2 1.6.2.3
1; 7.2.3 Chung et al., 2010; Davis, 1989; Nahm, et al., 2003; van Biljon & Renaud, 2009 Attitude 1.6.2.3 1; 7.3; 7.5 Davis, 1989; van Biljon & Renaud, 2009
Behavioural
intention
1.6.2.3 7.4 (b,c,d) Davis, 1989; van Biljon & Renaud, 2009
Table 6: Content validity of the staff questionnaire