Qualitative Measures

7.4.1. Semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured interviews were conducted

with six children and one teacher to gain a more in-depth understanding of the participants’ experiences of the PME. Semi-structured interviews allow the researcher to ask structured questions, enabling comparisons across

interviews, but also to pursue areas spontaneously initiated by the interviewee (Berg & Lune, 2013). Interview schedules were designed for children and teachers to include questions that addressed the aims and research questions of phase two (see Appendices 26 and 27). Topic areas corresponding to the research questions were included together with questions and prompts. This style of interview allows a degree of flexibility that enables the interviewer to modify questions and explore particular answers in more depth (Robson, 2002). Verbal and non-verbal communication in an interview enables the interviewer to use his skills to probe further and respond to non-verbal cues in an appropriate manner that maintains rapport and respects the interviewee’s level of desire to talk about a topic (Berg & Lune, 2013).

105

7.4.2. Evaluation Questionnaire. An evaluation questionnaire consisting of

mainly open-ended questions was used to gather the views of all the children who participated in the PME. A questionnaire was chosen to gather additional information that could be triangulated with findings from quantitative measures and the interviews. Open-ended questions were chosen as I was interested in obtaining a broad range of views that required the participants to express themselves in their own words. Closed questions have many disadvantages such as eliciting responses where no knowledge exists, oversimplifying issues and possibly forcing answers into unnatural categories (Julien, 2008). The wording of questions was based on the following criteria: questions were jargon free; questions were short; double-barrelled questions were avoided; questions were at an appropriate reading level; participants were likely to have the

knowledge required to answer (adapted from Julien, 2008; Robson, 2002). A draft version of the questionnaire was sent to my research supervisors before being modified and used with the children (see Appendix 28 for a copy of the questionnaire).

7.5. Procedures

7.5.1. SDQ and SCWBS. Before commencing data collection I spoke to both

tutor groups to outline the research project and give an overview of the PME. Additional written consent was obtained from all the children (see Appendix 29). The SDQ and SCWBS were administered with a total of 56 children before and after the PME. A brief explanation of the scales was given along with

instructions for completing them. Both tutor groups completed the forms in their usual classrooms. The statements on the SDQ and SCWBS were read out with a pause after each statement to enable the children to mark the sheet as

106

appropriate. The SDQ and SCWBS administration procedure allowed efficient data collection from all participants and enabled children to ask questions and express any difficulties understanding words or phrases.

In addition to the child rated SDQs, a further eleven teacher rated SDQs were completed for children chosen at random from the tutor group register. These forms were completed by the respective tutor group teachers before and after the PME (see Appendix 30 for teacher rated SDQs).

7.5.2. Semi-structured interviews with children. Interviews were held with six

children (three from each tutor group) who had participated in the PME. In total 18 letters with an opt-in consent form were sent to parents of children chosen at random from the classes’ registers (see Appendix 31 for the letter). Seven letters giving consent were returned (one child was absent on the day of the interviews). The six children who participated in the interviews also gave

additional signed consent. The sampling strategy used aimed to gather a range of views across the two classes. The gender split of the sample and the

participants’ SCWBS scores were representative of the two classes however there are questions as to the extent to which the sample was representative of both classes and this is discussed in the study limitations section later in this thesis.

Interviews with the children were conducted in a quiet room and each lasted between ten and fifteen minutes. All interviews were digitally recorded and fully transcribed (see Appendix 44 for example transcript of interview). The semi- structured interviews all followed a six stage process detailed below:

107

1. Arrival and Introductions – I was known to the children having visited the tutor groups on several occasions over the course of the PME.

2. Introducing the Research – the children were all aware of the research. I was able to explain the purpose of the interview and where it fitted in with the overall project. I explained about consent and anonymity. All children had opportunities to ask questions about the research at this point.

3. Beginning the interview – I began by asking questions about life at school and encouraged children to talk about things they enjoyed in order to build rapport and put the children at ease.

4. The main part of the interview – I followed a semi-structured interview schedule devised to answer the research questions and obtain further information about the children’s experiences of the PME.

5. Ending the interview – the children were asked for their final thoughts and if there was anything else that was important to know

6. After the interview – the children all had an opportunity to ask further questions (whether about the interview, mindfulness or more general questions).

All six steps above are adapted from Yeo et al. (2014).

7.5.3. Semi-structured interview with tutor teacher.

Both teachers agreed to be interviewed but unfortunately one of the teachers was called away urgently on the day of the interview and therefore only one of the teachers was interviewed. Written consent was obtained from the teacher.

108

The interview with the tutor teacher lasted approximately one hour and was conducted in a classroom at the end of the school day. A similar six step structure to the children’s interviews was used.

7.5.4. Evaluation Questionnaire. The evaluation questionnaire was

administered to the whole tutor group by their tutor teacher. All of the children were given an explanation of the questionnaire and how to complete it. They were encouraged to answer as honestly as possible. All 56 children in both tutor groups completed the questionnaire. The children were able to ask

questions for clarification and further explanations of the questions were given if necessary. Whole class administration of the questionnaire avoided common pitfalls of self-administered surveys such as misunderstandings (by giving

participants chances to ask questions) and low response rates (Robson, 2002).

7.6. Analysis

7.6.1 SDQ – Child rated. Completed SDQs (pre- and post-PME) were hand

scored by myself following instructions available on the SDQ website (Scoring

the SDQ, 2015). The scores for each individual item were then inputted into

SPSS, a statistical software programme. The data was subjected to the following procedures:

 Checks of normality and distribution

 Descriptive statistical analysis including means, standard deviations and ranges

 Dependent t-tests  Nonparametric tests

109

The SDQ consists of a total difficulties score and five other scales of ‘emotional problems’, ‘conduct problems’, ‘hyperactivity’, ‘peer relationship problems’ and ‘pro-social behaviour’ (R. Goodman, 2001) . Additionally the ‘emotional’ and ‘peer relationship problems’ scales can be aggregated to give an ‘internalising problems’ score and the ‘conduct problems’ and ‘hyperactivity’ scales can be added to give an ‘externalising problems’ score. In non-clinical populations the use of ‘internalising’ and ‘externalising’ scores from the SDQ has been

suggested as more appropriate than using the five sub-scales (A. Goodman, Lamping, & Ploubidis, 2010).

7.6.2. SDQ – Teacher Rated. The SDQs were hand scored by myself and then

input into SPSS. One of the children left during the research period and

therefore 11 teacher scored SDQs were subjected to the following procedures: