Data analysis of NGT discussions

The data analysis of the NGT was done using two processes. The technique of multiple group NGT data analysis documented by Van Breda (2005) and modified for the study was used. The first process was done in four steps to identify the top five themes and the second process was done as the fifth step. The researcher identified other themes that were not part of the top five themes in order to identify all the competency areas that could be deduced from the data, and lastly the specific items were analyzed using content analysis to identify the competencies and outcomes that will be used in the curriculum mapping. Gallagher et al. (1993) has indicated that NGT data can be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively, with the quantitative analysis facilitating the ranking and the qualitative analysis providing a better understanding of the issue discussed. In this study, because the statements from the different groups included a grouping that differed from others, and the findings of the NGT were to be integrated with those from the individual interviews and the research synthesis, for the researcher to be able to identify all the competencies and outcomes there was a need to re- visit the complete list of items and analyze them separately to identify those that were important to be integrated into the curriculum.

Using the steps of multiple group data analysis of NGT as modified from Van Breda (2005), modifications were made and the data from the eight groups were collected and analyzed, allowing identification of the top five competency areas from all of the groups. Table 3-2 provides the Excel view of the process of capturing and analyzing multiple group NGT data as used in the study.

Step 1: Data capturing

Using Excel, data from the different groups were captured as follows:

Column A: Group allocation: Each NGT group was allocated a number for identification purposes.

Column B: Group score: in each group, each theme was given a letter from the alphabet, and the individual scores and the sum were entered in this column as collected during the NGT discussion.

80

Column C: Group theme: The themes as developed by each group were entered in this column.

Columns D–J: The single scores as given during the discussion were entered in these columns. The number of participants for each group varied from four to seven. For each group, items that were not given a score were scored as zero to facilitate Excel’s calculation of the average in the next step. The range at this stage depended on the number of participants in each group and it will be limited to the highest number of participants in one specific group.

Column K: Sum of the single scores for each item. The single scores for each item were added up and this helped as a control to make sure that the previous calculations during the group discussions were correct, also to ensure that when averages were calculated the ranking remained the same for each group.

Column L: Calculation of averages for each group theme: Using the Excel function of average calculation, averages were calculated for each of the group items.

Column M: Identification of the top five for each group: Using column L, each group’s themes were ranked in descending order to identify the top five themes for each group and they were identified by marking ‘X’ in column M. The theme with the highest average was considered to be more important by the group. Checks were done to compare this ranking with the previous ranking done during the group discussion, based on the sum of the scores given by the group members. The ranking was identical.

Column N: Group theme percentage average: As four of the eight groups ranked the items out of five and other four ranked their themes out of 10 during the NGT sessions, it was necessary to convert the average on a similar denominator for comparison and further ranking of all eight groups’ ranks. To achieve that all averages were converted into percentages, as Gallagher et al. (1993) note, if scores are not standardized the difference in scores can be exaggerated and the ranking of multiple groups can be distorted.

Column O: Thematic analysis: Content analysis was done on the top five themes for all the eight groups’ themes and the core competencies that were identified were entered here.

81

Column P: Ranking based on the new identified core competencies was done and an average was calculated for each identified core competency to provide a ranking for priority. The new calculated average was entered in this column and the core competencies were placed in order of priority, based on the scores from the eight groups.

82 Table 3-2: Process of analyzing multiple group NGT data

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P

Institution

Score (for each theme – each theme was allocated a letter )

Theme (for

each group) Individual score

Average for each item Top five for each group % average score

Theme % score for each theme NGT - 5 D: 5+5+5+5+5+5= 30 HIV basic knowledge 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 5 x 100 Knowledge 74,5 NGT - 6 B: 5+5+5+5+5+1= 26 Knowledge: signs and symptoms, treatment, … 5 5 5 5 5 1 26 4,3 x 86,7 Knowledge NGT 1 10+9+4+10+10=43 Knowledge 10 9 4 10 10 43 8,6 x 86 Knowledge NGT 3 G: 3+5+5+3 = 16 Psychological empowerment of the nurse 3 5 5 3 0 16 3,2 x 64 Personal development 47 NGT 2 C: 5+8+8+3+3+9+8 =44 Transmission 5 8 8 3 3 9 8 44 6,3 x 62,9 Knowledge        

83

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P

Institution

Score (for each theme – each theme was allocated a letter )

Theme (for

each group) Individual score

Average for each item Top five for each group % average score

Theme % score for each theme NGT –8 J: 5+6+7+5=23 Nutrition 5 6 7 5 23 5,8 x 57,5 Health education NGT 4 B: 2+2+3+4+5 = 16 Holistic approach 2 2 3 4 5 0 16 2,7 x 53,3 Holistic safe practice NGT 7 M: 1+3+8+6+4 = 22 Ethical behaviour 1 3 8 6 4 22 4,4 44 Ethics NGT 4 D: 4+3+2+3+1= 13 Ethical dilemmas 4 3 2 3 1 0 13 2,2 x 43,3 Ethics        

84 Step 2: Identification of the top five

Themes developed and ranked from each group were arranged in order of importance based on the average statement value in column L. The order based on the sum of values was the same as the order based on the average.

To do this, the researcher first ordered all the statements by group (column A) in ascending order and then ordered the group average scored in descending order (column L). This allowed her to mark with an ‘X’ the top five items that had the highest average group score. In one group, there were two items sharing the fifth value and in that case both items were included, as recommended by Van Breda (2005), resulting in six items that were part of the top five for that group.

From the eight group discussions conducted using the NGT, 41 items were identified, and these items were used in the next step to identify the themes emerging from the top five items.

Step 3: Content analysis of the top five

Using content analysis the top five statements for each group were analyzed and six themes of competency areas were created: Holistic safe practice; Knowledge; Ethics; Health education; Policies; and Personal development. These newly developed themes for the core competencies were placed in column O.

Step 4: Calculating combined ranks

The top five competency areas were combined and a theme average was calculated from the 41 statements obtained from the top five of each of the eight groups. This average was calculated in column P, allowing the ranking of the newly synthesised competencies.

Step 5: Identification of additional competency area

In this step all the statements that were not part of the top five items from all the eight groups were analyzed qualitatively with the application of thematic content analysis to identify further competency areas that may not have been obtained in the previous analysis, as the statements were not part of the top five statements for the groups. The process of content analysis applied with the NGT is similar to the process applied for the individual interviews

85

as described in this chapter under heading 3.5.1.3.2. Following the process of content analysis again, one further competency area of interdisciplinary approach was obtained.

The third process of analyzing the NGT data involved using content analysis to analyze the various individual items that were identified by the various groups’ individual participants. As during the NGT process, the various groups had done some thematic groupings, which differed for each group. A further analysis was done to ensure identification of any other competency area that may have been lost due to earlier grouping by the various groups. Also, it allowed for specific items to be reviewed and reclassified in a more appropriate competency area based on the definitions developed in this study. Furthermore, this further analysis was necessary as it preceded the second phase of the study where the curriculum mapping was done. There was a need to identify specific competencies in each competency area, as well as specific outcomes that were to be mapped out in the curriculum. This analysis also assisted in combining the NGT data with the individual interview data.

The process involved looking at the individual statements and reading the transcripts of the NGT sessions for more details about the group discussion. Following an inductive thematic content analysis, similar items were combined to form outcomes as identified and discussed in the group discussion, then grouped into categories reflecting the specific competencies required for the management and care of HIV and AIDS. Then those categories were further grouped into competency areas, referring to the competency areas developed from the previous NGT analysis. The new ranking provided a final list of competencies and competency areas used to combine with the findings from the individual interviews. Table 4-5 in chapter four shows the identified competency areas, the specific competency in each competency area, the outcomes that form each competency, as well as some examples of the obtained reports from the three data sources used in this study.