Data collection instruments

Data refer to information obtained during the course of an investigation or study (Polit & Hungler 1999). In any study, the development of a formal instrument ensures that similar data are collected from all the participants and this also ensures that objectivity is maintained throughout the data collection process.

Focus-group interviews and self-administered questionnaire were therefore used as methods of data collection for this study.

35

Since the population also consisted of female participants, the researcher collected data with the help of one female research assistant who interviewed female participants in two focus groups at the two selected schools. A female research assistant interviewed the female participants, because of the sensitivity of the topic, and to enhance openness among the participants during the interviews. Although the study was not costly in terms of travel, it enabled the researcher to collect enough data using a standardised questionnaire (see Appendix F) and the interview schedule (see Appendix G) in both schools. The participants were given an hour to fill in the questionnaire and return it to the researcher afterwards. All the questionnaires were returned within the allocated time and the longest was within 10 minutes. The focus group discussions, which took about thirty minutes each, were done with the selected participants the same day during study time from 3 o’clock as agreed by the principal. The FGDs were conducted in both English and Xhosa since the participants’ home language is Xhosa. The fieldwork was conducted between 07 May and 25 May 2012. There was a week in between the interview in school A and the second interview in School B.

3.4.1 Questionnaires

A questionnaire is an instrument with open or closed questions or statements to which a respondent must react. Different kinds of questionnaires can be distinguished, such as mailed questionnaires, telephonic questionnaires, or the group questionnaire (McMillan & Schumacher 1997).

For the purpose of triangulation, a standardised questionnaire written in English was administered with twenty Grade 12 learners in each school, to validate the information obtained from the interviews. Twenty respondents per school (20 + 20 = 40) were considered a reasonable number in order to explore Grade 12 learners’ perceptions regarding HIV-infections. A Self-efficacy Scale (SES; Appendix F) assessing self-efficacy regarding performance of the specific self-protective behaviours of discussing condom use and HIV-antibody testing with potential sex partners and plans for future adherence to safer sex practices was developed during Phase 1. The SES used a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) with higher scores corresponding with a greater level of self- protective self-efficacy. Sample statements included “I have discussed safer sex with

36

my past sex partner(s)” and “I have discussed HIV testing with my current sex partner(s)”.

The HIV Vulnerability Scale (HIVVS; Appendix F) had four subscales to assess four components of the HBM: perceived susceptibility, severity, benefits of condom use and barriers to condom use. Each subscale of the HIVVS is a 4-item measurement using a 5-point Likert-type scale with higher scores indicating a higher degree of agreement or belief. Perceived severity subscale statements include “I would rather have any other terminal illness than AIDS”, and perceived benefits to condom use subscale statements include “I think it is worth the effort to have condoms readily available”. Each subscale of the HIVVS was used in data analysis.

The response rate was 100% since all the 40 questionnaires were distributed and filled in under the supervision of the researcher. This strategy was helpful in ensuring that no incomplete and unusable questionnaires were returned.

3.4.2 A justification of the use of a questionnaire

Despite the criticism that surveys lack imagination the following are the qualities of the survey design that influenced the researcher to integrate it into his methodology:

3.4.2.1 Uniqueness

A survey gathers information not available from other sources. Thus, the survey design enables the researcher to acquire original data to produce original information.

3.4.2.2 Non-probability and probability sampling

A survey has unbiased representation of population of interest as most subjects are given equal chances to participate (Trochim 2006). It is also flexible in that a researcher can still use the non-probability sampling if the sample is big.

37

3.4.2.3 Standardization of measurement

Surveys gather the same information collected from all respondents making it easy for the researcher to deduce information. Surveys collect data from different points but all respondents respond to the same question using the same instrument making it easy for the researcher to be guaranteed of getting standard information.

3.4.2.4 Analysis needs

Surveys use data to complement existing data from secondary sources. Theories can be tested or verified using surveys. By virtue of being able to assess human behaviour in a large sample or population, what writers have said or hypothesised can be verified or tested within a short space of time.

3.4.2.5 Convenient sample size

This type of design which allows the researcher to use his/her discretion can enable the researcher to deal with big sample sizes within a short time (Creswell 2003). Leedy and Ormrod (2005) also agree that surveys can be sent to a large number of people, including those who live thousands of miles away. Thus they may save the researcher travel expenses, and postage is typically cheaper than a lengthy long- distance telephone call. From the perspective of survey, this distance becomes an additional advantage.

3.4.2.6 Anonymity of respondents

Participants can respond to questions with assurance that their responses will be anonymous, and so they may be more truthful than they would be in a personal interview. Particularly when they are talking about sensitive or controversial issues (Leedy and Ormrod 2005).