儿童对回顾性“前后-测试”调查效度的看法

Leanne M. Kelly
{"title":"儿童对回顾性“前后-测试”调查效度的看法","authors":"Leanne M. Kelly","doi":"10.56645/jmde.v15i33.535","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n \nBackground: Over the past forty years there have been a number of studies conducted to compare traditional pre-post surveys (pretest-posttests; administered in two stages before and after an intervention) with retrospective pre-posts (thentests or pre-then-post-tests; administered after intervention only, with participants asked to reflect back to complete the ‘pre’ retrospectively). These previous studies have been with adult respondents and overwhelmingly quantitative.   \n  \nPurpose: This paper examines children’s perspectives regarding traditional and retrospective pre-post self-report subjective surveys. \n  \nSetting: A school-based program run by a community services organisation in southeastern Melbourne. \n  \nIntervention: Both pre-post survey types were administered to sixty children attending a pro-social skills group run by a community services organisation in southeast suburban Melbourne. \n  \n \n \nResearch Design:  Twenty children participated in eight small focus groups after completing the surveys. Each focus group was guided by three semi-structured questions, ran for 10-15 minutes, and had 2-3 participants. This research included an observation component as the researcher was present at the final session when the post surveys were completed. The research also utilised the quantitative findings from the surveys to check alignment with findings from the extant literature. \n  \nData Collection and Analysis: Focus groups & qualitative analysis \n  \nFindings: The traditional and retrospective surveys confirm that the commonly recorded phenomenon of response shift in adults also occurs with children. Children comment that they prefer the retrospective test, identifying concerns that support theories discussed in the extant literature such as experience limitation, impression management, implicit theory of change, and memory recall. \n  \n \n \n \n","PeriodicalId":91909,"journal":{"name":"Journal of multidisciplinary evaluation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Children’s Opinion of Retrospective Pre-Post ‘Then-Test’ Survey Validity\",\"authors\":\"Leanne M. Kelly\",\"doi\":\"10.56645/jmde.v15i33.535\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n \\n \\nBackground: Over the past forty years there have been a number of studies conducted to compare traditional pre-post surveys (pretest-posttests; administered in two stages before and after an intervention) with retrospective pre-posts (thentests or pre-then-post-tests; administered after intervention only, with participants asked to reflect back to complete the ‘pre’ retrospectively). These previous studies have been with adult respondents and overwhelmingly quantitative.   \\n  \\nPurpose: This paper examines children’s perspectives regarding traditional and retrospective pre-post self-report subjective surveys. \\n  \\nSetting: A school-based program run by a community services organisation in southeastern Melbourne. \\n  \\nIntervention: Both pre-post survey types were administered to sixty children attending a pro-social skills group run by a community services organisation in southeast suburban Melbourne. \\n  \\n \\n \\nResearch Design:  Twenty children participated in eight small focus groups after completing the surveys. Each focus group was guided by three semi-structured questions, ran for 10-15 minutes, and had 2-3 participants. This research included an observation component as the researcher was present at the final session when the post surveys were completed. The research also utilised the quantitative findings from the surveys to check alignment with findings from the extant literature. \\n  \\nData Collection and Analysis: Focus groups & qualitative analysis \\n  \\nFindings: The traditional and retrospective surveys confirm that the commonly recorded phenomenon of response shift in adults also occurs with children. Children comment that they prefer the retrospective test, identifying concerns that support theories discussed in the extant literature such as experience limitation, impression management, implicit theory of change, and memory recall. \\n  \\n \\n \\n \\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":91909,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of multidisciplinary evaluation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-07-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of multidisciplinary evaluation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v15i33.535\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of multidisciplinary evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56645/jmde.v15i33.535","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

背景:在过去的四十年里,已经进行了许多研究,将传统的岗前调查(测试前-测试后;在干预前后分两个阶段进行)与回顾性岗前调查进行比较(真实测试或先测试后测试;仅在干预后进行,参与者被要求反思以回顾性地完成“测试前”)。这些先前的研究都是针对成年受访者的,而且绝大多数都是定量的。目的:本文考察了儿童对传统和回顾性前后自我报告主观调查的看法。设置:由墨尔本东南部的一个社区服务组织运营的一个以学校为基础的项目。干预:对60名参加墨尔本东南郊区一家社区服务组织运营的亲社会技能小组的儿童进行了两种前后调查。研究设计:20名儿童在完成调查后参加了8个小组。每个焦点小组由三个半结构化问题指导,持续10-15分钟,有2-3名参与者。这项研究包括一个观察部分,因为研究人员在完成调查后的最后一次会议上在场。该研究还利用调查的定量结果来检查与现存文献的结果是否一致。数据收集和分析:焦点小组和定性分析结果:传统和回顾性调查证实,成年人常见的反应转移现象也发生在儿童身上。孩子们评论说,他们更喜欢回顾性测试,确定支持现有文献中讨论的理论的问题,如经验限制、印象管理、内隐变化理论和记忆回忆。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Children’s Opinion of Retrospective Pre-Post ‘Then-Test’ Survey Validity
Background: Over the past forty years there have been a number of studies conducted to compare traditional pre-post surveys (pretest-posttests; administered in two stages before and after an intervention) with retrospective pre-posts (thentests or pre-then-post-tests; administered after intervention only, with participants asked to reflect back to complete the ‘pre’ retrospectively). These previous studies have been with adult respondents and overwhelmingly quantitative.     Purpose: This paper examines children’s perspectives regarding traditional and retrospective pre-post self-report subjective surveys.   Setting: A school-based program run by a community services organisation in southeastern Melbourne.   Intervention: Both pre-post survey types were administered to sixty children attending a pro-social skills group run by a community services organisation in southeast suburban Melbourne.   Research Design:  Twenty children participated in eight small focus groups after completing the surveys. Each focus group was guided by three semi-structured questions, ran for 10-15 minutes, and had 2-3 participants. This research included an observation component as the researcher was present at the final session when the post surveys were completed. The research also utilised the quantitative findings from the surveys to check alignment with findings from the extant literature.   Data Collection and Analysis: Focus groups & qualitative analysis   Findings: The traditional and retrospective surveys confirm that the commonly recorded phenomenon of response shift in adults also occurs with children. Children comment that they prefer the retrospective test, identifying concerns that support theories discussed in the extant literature such as experience limitation, impression management, implicit theory of change, and memory recall.  
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信