1 / 13

The 2nd Pilot Study in Germany focussing on 8-year-olds

The 2nd Pilot Study in Germany focussing on 8-year-olds. Structure. The pilot study Main result: „Kids are happy“ Abstract questions Content validity Problems with the scale Construct validity Some reservations about the questionnaire Possible next steps.

berke
Download Presentation

The 2nd Pilot Study in Germany focussing on 8-year-olds

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Zoe Clark, Sabine Andresen, Katharina Gerarts www.childrensworlds.org • The 2nd Pilot Study in Germany • focussing on 8-year-olds

  2. Structure • The pilot study • Main result: „Kids are happy“ • Abstract questions • Content validity • Problems with the scale • Construct validity • Some reservations about the questionnaire • Possible next steps Zoe Clark, Prof. Sabine Andresen, Katharina Gerarts www.childrensworlds.org

  3. 1. Pilot Study: Work in Progress • Pilot study for 8-year-olds in Germany: • Mixed methods: • Quantitative pilot with 8-9 year olds (N=55) • Cognitive interviews with 8 year olds (N=3) • Group discussions with 8-9 year olds (2) Zoe Clark, Prof. Sabine Andresen, Katharina Gerarts www.childrensworlds.org

  4. 2. Main Result: „Kids are happy“ • With our Data we Cannot go Further Beyond this Result: “Kids are happy”. Nearly all of the children agreed that they were happy with most of the things asked, like, for example: • Family interaction • School peer/friend interaction • Subjective well-being • With their town and neighbourhood • School achievement • Health • Leisure time • Things they have access to Zoe Clark, Prof. Sabine Andresen, Katharina Gerarts www.childrensworlds.org

  5. 2. Main Result: a. Abstract Questions Zoe Clark, Prof. Sabine Andresen, Katharina Gerarts www.childrensworlds.org

  6. 2. Main Result: a. Abstract questions Zoe Clark, Prof. Sabine Andresen, Katharina Gerarts www.childrensworlds.org

  7. 2. Main Result: b. Content Validity Who is the family? Three interviews, two family models: Nuclear family [girl, living with parents and a brother]: I: “ Who are you thinking about now, if it is about your family? C: “About my mother, my father, my brother.“ (Interview 1, line 41-42)  There seem to be different concepts about the family in different sociocultural environments  what does this mean for our questionnaire? Extended family [boy who lives with his parents]: I: “Who are you thinking about, if I ask you about your family?” C: “About my uncle a little and also a little about playing with my friend.“ I: “Who are you thinking about?” C: “Actually about everybody.” I: “Do you have a big family?” C: “I have big family.“ (Interview 3, line 25/26) Zoe Clark, Prof. Sabine Andresen, Katharina Gerarts www.childrensworlds.org

  8. 2. Main Result: b. Content validity • Do the children understand the questions in the way they were intended? • Are we as researchers sure about the meaning of each question? • Is there one unequivocal meaning of the question? • Can the child duplicate that intended meaning? • Hence, can answers by different children to the same question be compared? Zoe Clark, Prof. Sabine Andresen, Katharina Gerarts www.childrensworlds.org

  9. 2. Main Result: c. Problems with the scale • The middle category ‘neither...nor’ also caused confusion: C2: “What should it mean: neither nor? I: “If you do not agree and do not disagree.” C2: “Thus it is somehow both?” I: “yes, or none of them” C2: “mhm” [she doesn’t sound very convinced]. (Interview 2, line 119) • In addition, the children tend to transform the 5 likert scale into a binary scale. • A 5 endpoint scale could be a good alternative: • Fully agree ○○○○○fullydisagree Zoe Clark, Prof. Sabine Andresen, Katharina Gerarts www.childrensworlds.org

  10. 2. Main Results: d. Construct Validity: Independent Factors? Stability of the factors when rotated with others: 1. Items switch between factors when rotated 2. Some items have double loadings; they have similar loadings on more than one factor. Zoe Clark, Prof. Sabine Andresen, Katharina Gerarts www.childrensworlds.org

  11. 3. Some Reservations about the Questionnaire • The questionnaire consists of 59 single items which are related to at least 11 dimensions (plus demographic items). Is it suitable for 8 and 9 year olds? • Do we need a better operationalization with respect to comparisons? • Does the questionnaire show a tendency to solicit positive answers? • How can we solve the problem of items having too little variance? • Can we conclude that variance is related to a lack of content validity? Zoe Clark, Prof. Sabine Andresen, Katharina Gerarts www.childrensworlds.org

  12. 4. Possible Next Steps • A reduction in the number of dimensions  restructure the questionnaire. • More detailed operationalization of the items of those dimensions used  clearer questions • Discussing the complexity of scales for eight year old children. • We should try to include more questions on the life situation of children, to make questions better understood Zoe Clark, Prof. Sabine Andresen, Katharina Gerarts www.childrensworlds.org

  13. Thank you! Prof. Dr. Sabine Andresen Goethe-University Frankfurt S.Andresen@em.uni-frankfurt.de Zoe Clark Goethe-University Frankfurt Z.Clark@em.uni-frankfurt.de Katharina Gerarts World Vision Institute for Research and Innovation Katharina_Gerarts@wvi.org www.childrensworlds.org Zoe Clark, Prof. Sabine Andresen, Katharina Gerarts www.childrensworlds.org

More Related