system to team members and sent to others with a stamped addressed envelope for returning to the lead researcher. Completion and return of the questionnaire
indicated that the stakeholders had consented. The questionnaires were coded so that the stakeholders’ responses could be compared with all the other responses that had been made about the same case.
5.3.4.2 The occupational therapy stakeholder questionnaire
The occupational therapist who worked with each participant with learning disability completed a similar questionnaire (OT stakeholder, see Appendix K) so that the perceptions of all involved in each case could be compared.
5.4 Data analysis of the responses to the interviews and
questionnaires
The data were considered for analysis in two distinct groups:
The specific questions regarding the essential criteria for an occupational therapy assessment using descriptive analysis.
The more general responses and comments from the semi-structured interview and open questions and comments on the questionnaires using thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006).
Data analysis across the whole research study has previously been described in Section 3.4.5. An inductive thematic analysis of the data was completed which has been described by Braun and Clarke (2006) as data-driven in that the coding should be reflective of the participants’ views without being influenced by the researchers’ preconceptions or the specific questions that were asked. The data collected for each participant with learning disabilities were gathered from multiple sources as the issues about occupational therapy practice could only be understood ‘within a holistic, complex social system’ (Gray 2014, p328). The analysis of data and subsequence actions were completed in a collaborative way with the OT co- researchers. All interviews, questionnaires and reports about the same participant with a learning disability were compared and linked together as a data set (see
166 Table 3.3) and were considered as to what issues were consistent across the
stakeholders and what varied.
Each occupational therapy assessment report was reviewed to consider what assessment was completed and who it was sent to. The reports were referred to when they were mentioned by the respondents to compare with the comments made. The data were then reviewed from all sources to consider if any common themes emerged.
It was recognised that some participants with learning disabilities were able to provide fuller answers than others. The details of the variations in the participants with learning disabilities’ ability to respond were taken into account during the analysis of the data to ensure that the voice of all the participants with learning disabilities could be fully acknowledged. Any non-verbal signs such as facial expressions gestures or behaviours were also noted if relevant to the
communication and the lead researcher adjusted the questions in response to these. For example, when a participant pointed at or looked at a picture this was noted. When a participant looked away or was distracted by other things the lead researcher had to adjust the interview to allow for the person to do this, to attempt to re-engage them in the subject or to stop the interview as this was an indication that they had finished. The interviews of the participants with learning disabilities and the carers were transcribed from the audio recordings. Notes were made of any non- verbal communication by the participants with learning disabilities such as when they pointed to a picture, nodded or made a facial expression in response to a question. The lead researcher acknowledged these responses by saying for example: “you are shaking your head do you mean no?” She made notes of these responses either during the interview or when transcribing the recording. The
interviews were semi structured in nature and were intended to allow the interviewee to respond spontaneously. This resulted in some flexibility in the structure of the interviews with the participants with learning disabilities and with the carers. The lead researcher adapted the wording of the questions and at times, the order, by taking into account the responses received. The participants with learning
disabilities occasionally talked about other subjects and needed prompting to return to the question. Some questions were not asked as the lead researcher judged that the participant with learning disability had lost interest or had already answered the question in his or her previous responses. The OT co-researcher who completed the interviews for one of the data sets was noted to have kept more rigidly to the script
167 of the interview. The interview transcripts were shorter when compared to the other data sets as perhaps there had been less probing from the interviewer to encourage the participants to expand on their answers.
The complex nature of the data collected and the different quantities of data produced, due to the wide range of communication skills of the participants with learning disabilities, resulted in some difficulties in triangulating the data and ensuring that the themes that emerged were trustworthy. The aim of the analysis was to reveal the perceptions of the different responders recognising that each person’s view was their reality even if these differed from each other. The lead researcher took the lead in analysing the data but collaborated with the OT co- researchers in this process in the group meetings. She shared some of the raw data in the form of interview transcripts at an early stage in the analysis process so they could reflect on the findings and share their views with their colleagues. Towards the end of the analysis process, the lead researcher shared quotes that she had
categorised into themes for the OT co-researchers to review and consider if they would categorise them in this way. The views collated contributed to the data analysis and triangulation of the data. The OT co-researcher group was used to consider the initial themes for the participants with learning disabilities interviews and to check the analysis made by the lead researcher as a way of improving the trustworthiness of the findings.
5.5 Summary
Chapter five has described how the OT co-researchers participated with the lead researcher in planning the review of their practice in the first part of stage two of the research study. Chapter six now considers the findings of the exploration of how the occupational therapy assessments and interventions were perceived in order to meet the objectives set out in Table 5.1.
168