OVERVIEW OF DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES

Data were collected in 10 schools from 2 school districts, using non-random sampling methods. In these schools, the researcher measured: (1) baseline self- reported medical history of teachers; (2) baseline building and classroom air quality factors; (3) longitudinal RH and

temperature; and (4) longitudinal asthma and cold/allergy symptoms among all teachers. Participant recruitment and data collection were conducted in two phases. Phase 1

included a preliminary test of hygrometers in a year-round New Hanover County school. Phase 2 included a second round of data collection in the remaining schools, using procedures improved by recommendations from Phase 1 participants. Additionally, secondary data were gathered from public sources such as the Department of Public Instruction and the State Climate Office of NC.

3.2.1. Recruitment

School and district recruitment procedures were the same for both phases of the study. Participant recruitment procedures differed slightly between the two phases.

3.2.1.1. Selection of Districts

Administrators from 20 school districts were contacted by the researcher in January 2010, based on referrals from industrial hygienists and previous interest in the Environmental

Protection Agency’s (EPA) educational program “IAQ Tools for Schools.” Superintendents from three school districts provided letters of support for the inclusion of their districts in this study. Due to time and budget constraints, we required commitments from at least 3 schools in each district for that district to remain in the study. One district was not able to meet this requirement and was dropped from the study. A contact person from each district maintenance office was

39

designated as our district liaison. The liaisons provided valuable insight during the design and implementation of the study.

3.2.1.2. Recruitment of Schools

To develop administrative commitment and promote community ownership of the research, the district liaison chose which schools were contacted for inclusion in the study. The researcher gave each liaison a recruitment letter and letter of consent to send via email to

principals of potential schools, before each study phase. Because the researcher hoped to capture diversity in school grade levels and resources, liaisons were encouraged to recruit some schools from each grade level (primary, middle, and high school). Thus the school sampling design was non-probability based, heterogeneity sampling (112). Liaisons typically recruited principals who were historically receptive to novel programs and research or those whose schools had previous IAQ issues.

Principals with questions or concerns about school participation were referred to the researcher. After explaining the study purpose and procedures, the researcher or district liaison requested permission from the principals for their school’s participation in the study. For their school to officially become a study site, interested principals were required to mail or fax their signed letters of commitment by a stated deadline. The researcher sent out reminders to all recruited principals a few days prior to this deadline.

Once their schools were enrolled, each principal assigned a school liaison. The researcher then scheduled an initial face-to-face meeting with each principal and/or liaison to review the study procedures, answer further questions, acquire a school map, schedule the enrollment training, and meet other essential school personnel such as the custodial supervisor. During these meetings, the researcher also reviewed the school liaison responsibilities, which included

40

logistical planning of site visits and distribution of recruitment and other study materials to school employees, as necessary. School liaisons also granted our study staff access to

classrooms and any necessary equipment for study trainings. In most cases, the liaisons fielded questions between the researcher and members of the school community and were enthusiastic promoters of our research and trainings. Later, they provided valuable feedback and insight into their school communities’ perceptions of our study.

3.2.1.3. Recruitment and Enrollment of Participants

The researcher recruited participants by convenience sampling from participating schools, with the goal of enrolling as many participants as possible (112). The researcher asked principals to send out an IRB-approved recruitment letter and consent form to all full-time teachers. Recruitment letters included a brief description of the study purpose, outline of

participation requirements, and an invitation to the enrollment training. Consent forms contained detailed information about the risks, benefits, and incentives of participating and about the study procedures including privacy policies, participant and investigator responsibilities. The

researcher requested that recruitment materials be sent several days before the enrollment training, so that teachers would have time to review them and ask the researcher questions.

During Phase 1, enrollment trainings were scheduled at the convenience of the principals. Half were scheduled during staff meetings and half were scheduled as stand-alone trainings. Originally, Phase 1enrollment trainings were designed to last 30 minutes to an hour, with time to fill out online enrollment surveys built into the agenda. However, only two trainings were able to be held in computer labs. After the other enrollment trainings, consenting attendees were sent a welcome email with the enrollment survey link and instructions within 24 hours.

41

Since trainings scheduled during staff meetings had better attendance and were more efficient at recruiting participants, Phase 2 school enrollment trainings were scheduled for the next available staff meeting. Enrollment trainings were shortened to 15 minutes, to accommodate the tight schedules of school staff meetings. All phase 2 study participants were sent a welcome email with the enrollment survey link and instructions within 24 hours of the staff meeting.

Enrollment was staggered by school based on the available training date. Some schools had multiple enrollment dates because interested teachers had scheduling conflicts with the enrollment training (i.e. illness, tutoring, or other responsibilities). The researcher did her best to accommodate and enroll all interested teachers by setting up individual or group meeting times with those who notified the researcher of the conflicts.

All enrollment training presentations included a brief description of the study purpose and procedures and explanation of risks, benefits, and incentives. During Phase 1, the incentive was described as a “non-monetary gift of your choice,” since we allowed Phase 1 participants to vote on their incentives. During Phase 2 enrollment training presentations, the researcher showed attendees the incentive gift, chosen by Phase 1 participants, and a hygrometer, to familiarize them with the study procedures. Teachers responded positively to these visual tools.

Time was given during the training for questions and after the training for filling out consent and contact information forms. Participants were given blank, electronic copies of the consent forms during Phase 1, with the option of receiving signed, paper copies upon request. All Phase 2 participants received signed, paper copies of their consent forms.

All participants were assigned unique study identifiers (ID) on their pre-labeled contact information forms. If a form was not returned, the researcher retired this study ID to avoid any potential duplicates if the teacher later decided to participate. The researcher paired study IDs

42

with participant names, contact information, and hygrometer ID numbers in an encrypted, password-protected Excel spreadsheet to create the study roster.

After returning their consent and contact information forms, Phase 1 participants received an enrollment packet with their participant identification (ID) numbers, the enrollment survey website, and paper copies of the Weekly Health Diary, one for each week of attempted follow- up, with pre-labeled IDs. Phase 2 enrollment packets contained a copy of the consent form, an instruction sheet with participant IDs, and the enrollment survey link and password.