Reliability and Validity of the Self-Structured Questionnaire (SSQ)

The validity and reliability of the structured questionnaire was evaluated in order to ensure that data from the structured questionnaire were internally invariable and logical for analysis.

4.6.2.1 Validity of the Self-Structured Questionnaire

The content was analysed to ensure the validity of the structured questionnaire:

 Content validity- Content validity assesses whether the questions in the questionnaire cover all aspects being studied (Drost, 2011). It assesses the extent to which a measuring instrument represents the content being measured (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010). The researcher consulted two experts, the statistician and her supervisor, and asked them to analyse and evaluate the content of the questionnaire. The evaluation was based on the wording of the questions, the appropriateness of the content, the complexity of the language used, whether questions were clear, self-explanatory, and were not too long. The reason the researcher requested the experts to evaluate the content of the questionnaire was to ensure that ambiguity was eliminated, to remove or revise questions that were not clear, to evaluate if questions reflected the concepts and the scope to be studied, and to examine if the length and the structure of the questionnaire was acceptable. After incorporating the recommendations from the experts the questionnaire was ready to be piloted.

 Face validity refers to what the test appears to measure (Drost, 2011). The researcher, with the help of a fellow researcher, observed face validity when the questionnaire was administered to the five Grade 10 learners, who were requested to participate in the

87

pilot study. According to their observation, the face validity of the instrument was satisfactory.

4.6.2.2 Reliability of the Self-Structured Questionnaire

 Test reliability was determined to ensure reliability of the structured questionnaire: The

test-retest reliability – This is the extent to which a single instrument produces the

same results for the same people on different occasions (Leedy & Ormrod, 2010). The five Grade 10 learners participated in the pilot test. The five learners volunteered to be part of the pilot study. They were asked to complete the questionnaire on two occasions under the same conditions. The volunteers completed the questionnaire at a location in Pretoria, and were requested to complete the same questionnaire at the same location. The five learners were not included in the research sample. The aim was to ensure that the participants understood the questions and were able to identify possible challenges regarding the completion of the questionnaire. A brief discussion was held with participants to establish if there were any challenges experienced with completing the questions, and whether the instructions were clear. Minor challenges were identified and the questionnaire was revised accordingly:

o Section C; C4 (Explanation of the term “Personality” was added), C6 (Explanation of the term “Abilities” was added), C7 (Explanation of the term “Values” was added).

o Section F; F6 (An extra column, “other” was added as it was noted that the list provided was not enough).

The reliability coefficient was used to measure the reliability of the questionnaire. The tests yielded the same results for the five participants on different occasions. The researcher was satisfied with the reliability of the questionnaire.

4.7 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The research proposal was submitted to the Ethics Committee of the Department of Psychology at the University of South Africa for ethical clearance. Permission to conduct the study was

88

first requested in writing from the Gauteng Department of Education (GDE) authorities. Immediately after the permission was granted the researcher made an appointment with the responsible manager at Tshwane-West District Education, to request permission to conduct the research at the seven Secondary Schools in Ga-Rankuwa. A formal letter requesting permission was handed in on the day of the appointment, and within two weeks the researcher was granted permission from the Tshwane-West District Education.

Subsequent to this, the researcher arranged meetings with the seven principals of the secondary schools to further request permission to conduct the study at their schools, and to introduce the study, explain the benefits of the study and to arrange the logistics for the research. During the meetings with the principals, the researcher was requested to produce the approval letters from GDE and Tshwane-West District. It was agreed at the meetings that the researcher be allocated a LO teacher to assist with logistics for administering the test. Permission was further requested from the parents of the learners to allow their children to participate in the study. A consent form was handed at the schools a month before the administration of the test. The researcher explained in the consent form the purpose of the study, the benefits thereof, and why it was important for learners to participate in the study. The researcher emphasised that participation was voluntary. Parents were requested to read through the consent form and indicate whether they allowed their children to participate or not. The majority of the parents retuned the consent forms and gave permission for their children to participate in the study. The learners whose parents did not give consent were excluded from the study.

On the day the questionnaire was supposed to be administered further permission was requested from the participants. The purpose of the study, data collection method, and the expectation of the researcher were explained in detail to the research participants. The participants were informed that participation was voluntary; and that they could withdraw from the study anytime, without fear of being penalised. According to Burns and Grove (2005), confidentiality refers to how the researcher manages confidential information that participants share. The participants were informed that no person will be linked directly to a particular completed questionnaire, and that no person will be identified by name in the research report.

According to Polit and Hungler (1997), anonymity means that the information collected cannot be linked, even by the researcher, to a particular respondent. Participants were informed that they would not be required to indicate their names on the questionnaire – thus, the responses

89

to questionnaires would not be linked to any learner. The researcher communicated that she was the only person who would have access to the completed questionnaires, and that once the report has been completed, she would destroy all the questionnaires. The participants were requested to sign the consent forms on the day the questionnaires were administered. The researcher ensured that consent was obtained from all stakeholders, and that stakeholders were provided with enough information to enable them to make informed decisions. Regarding feedback on the research findings, the participants were informed that a copy of the findings would be made available at all participating schools and the Gauteng Department of Education.