Data Collection Methods Clause Samples

Data Collection Methods. The field of user-centred system development and human-computer interaction offers a wide range of established methods for user requirements gathering. In digital library studies these methods include questionnaires, interviews, focus groups, direct observation, diary studies and transaction log analyses amongst others (▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2000). These are also regularly found in digital cultural heritage user studies; for instance, the Multimatch project utilised both interviews and log file analysis, in addition to competitor analysis and the development of scenarios (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al, 2005). The TELplus project utilised focus groups, interviews, questionnaire surveys and log analyses (▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al, 2008). The ECLAP project used a combination of desk research, user surveys, expert interviews, brainstorming workshops and case study development (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al, 2010). Definition of initial user requirements for Europeana was mainly derived via expert workshops, where target users and scenarios of use were defined (Purday, 2005), whilst the later EuropeanaConnect builds upon this knowledge to define requirements for the mobile environment through additional desk research and a user survey (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ & ▇▇▇▇▇, 2009). There are then several methods in common use, and the selection of those most appropriate to the project in hand seems to depend upon the nature of the project, availability of prior knowledge, and to some degree, the resources of the project teams involved. For this initial stage of the PATHS User Requirements Analysis our methodology selection has been determined by the skills and experience of the project team developed in previous studies, access to potential users in the cultural heritage domain and consideration of time constraints. We were also limited by the availability of any existing systems that offers the scope and functionality of the proposed PATHS system, ruling out several of the observational methods in the first phase of the project. Our selected methods are in three categories:  Desk research – for contextual information and knowledge of the state of the art in systems and practices relating to the creation of paths.  Surveys – both quantitative (questionnaire) and qualitative (interview) approaches, with users selected according to domain knowledge and availability  User experiments – various observational techniques employed to understand actual user behaviour in tasks relating to path creation and use. These will be ...

Data Collection Methods. Supplier and Requester will agree upon the methods for collection and creation of Study Data in the Protocol. Requester, in consultation with its institutional review board (“IRB”) or independent ethics committee (“IEC”), will determine whether Data Protection Laws, including without limitation HIPAA, require an informed consent form to be obtained from each Study Data Source based on such methods and will record such determination in the Protocol.

Data Collection Methods. Prior to conducting the interview, an initial telephonic consultation with participants was conducted. After the initial consultation, participants were e-mailed a copy of the interview packet that consisted of tentative interview questions (Appendix D), the description of research (Appendix E), informed consent (Appendix F), demographic questionnaire (Appendix H), cultural diversity, screening questions I & II (Appendix I) and Emory IRB approval form (Appendix G). Participants were asked to fill out the cultural diversity survey, demographic questionnaire and informed consent and to either mail it to me or scan and send it to me electronically. Interviews occurred in the latter part of Fall Term of 2014 and early part of Spring Term of 2015.

Data Collection Methods. The Rapid Plot Monitoring Protocol (RPMP) used for data collection was adapted from the Kaibab Rapid Plot protocol (▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇.▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5438937.pdf) developed for Kaibab National Forest Plan (▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇.▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3791580.pdf) monitoring program. This work is similar to/adapted from ▇▇▇▇▇ et al. 2015 rapid forest assessment methods. The adaptation used in this data collection effort was developed through members of the 4FRI Multi-Party Monitoring Board to provide pre- and post-treatment data to address stakeholder developed monitoring indicators/questions/metrics (Final EIS – Appendix E - ▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇.▇▇▇▇.▇▇▇/main/4fri/planning). Specifically, the protocol and data collection effort addresses indicators 3-4, 7-10, 24-25, and 30. The RPMP (Appendix A) guides data collection to assess tree and vegetation structure (trees >4” in diameter at breast height, shrubs, grasses, forbs), ground cover, fuels related structure (dominant fuel model(s), tons of fine fuels, canopy base height), wildlife use, regeneration (trees <4”), disturbance (grazing, fire, mechanical, insects and disease), and presence of invasive plant species (▇▇▇▇://▇▇▇.▇▇.▇▇▇.▇▇/database/feis/plants/index.html). The four Task Orders chosen for plot installation and measurement (Wing Mountain East, ▇▇▇▇ Prairie, Hochderffer, and ▇▇▇▇▇’s Well) were gridded with a potential plot network using GIS software (200 x 200 m spacing). A subset of plots was randomly selected for measurement, using a 1 plot/50 acres rule of thumb. All plot locations were permanently monumented with a small metal pin buried at plot center with a tag indicating Task order and Plot #. A reference tree was tagged below ▇▇▇▇▇ height to help relocate plot centers. A sub-meter UTM coordinate was taken at each plot center, and coordinates were corrected using Pathfinder Office software. Plot inspections were performed by both The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) individually and collectively. TNC inspected two plots and the USFS inspected four plots (two TNC inspected plots and 2 previously un-inspected plots) early in the data collection process. Several issues with “in/out” trees were identified and crews re-measured these plots. Subsequently, TNC and USFS co- inspected three plots and found no accuracy issues with any of the data collected. Data using the RPM protocol was collected across; 55 plots in the Wing Mountain East Task Order (5...

Data Collection Methods. ‌ The concept of a “latrine training mat” was initially introduced by principal investigators and staff members of the WASH-Benefits field study based in the Western province of Kenya. Through their work in the domain of water, sanitation, and hygiene in this context, they had observed that young children – particularly toddlers under the age of five – were not using latrines, even if their family compound had one that was functional. After informally inquiring into the cultural reasons for this practice, the WASH-Benefits team learned that children at this age were often afraid of the large hole, and their mothers did not like them using the latrine because it was considered unsafe and also because it made the latrine less sanitary for the rest of <.. image(DSCF0293.JPG Original LTM prototype. Photo by ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, WASH-Benefits (2010). Used with permission.) removed ..> the household to use. The WASH-Benefits team developed the initial design for the latrine training mat in an effort to remove latrine barriers for these young children and facilitate their earlier latrine use by providing them with a stable, washable surface and a smaller hole for defecating into the latrine. The mat was designed to be lightweight so that it could be kept inside the family latrine and easily moved on and off the latrine whenever a young child needed to use it. In the summer of 2011, the Latrine Training Mat study (also referred to in this paper as the WASH-LTM study) continued the work started in the 2010 pilot study by enhancing the latrine training mat’s design and developing three working prototypes to be delivered to families in two communities. (A thorough description of each LTM prototype is given further in this section.) When preparing the research design for the Latrine Training Mat study, three primary research questions were identified that would shape the purpose and methods of the study: Qualitative research methods were chosen for this study, because they would best be able to explore the issues from the perspective of the study population themselves. In-depth interviews (IDIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs) were selected as the primary qualitative methods to be used during the data collection process. The in-depth interviews would enable the research team to understand the local practices in both general and individual terms. The focus group discussions would facilitate open conversations that would add breadth and nuance to the issues, thus complem...

Data Collection Methods. Originally, the researcher intended to recruit only men whose children or wives were receiving financial assistance and were involved in programs at Mil Solidarios. However, due to recruitment challenges, the study population was expanded to include all fathers in the Bañado Sur. All in-depth interviews, group discussions, and focus groups were conducted in Spanish. Though the researcher speaks Spanish at an advanced level, it was brought to the researcher’s attention that participants from the community were more likely to give honest responses to a community member than a foreigner. In addition, though many community members speak Spanish fluently, Jopará is often used, a mix between Spanish and Guaraní. Therefore, a research assistant from Mil Solidarios who is also a community member of the Bañado Sur and fluent in both Spanish and Guaraní conducted all in-depth interviews and moderated all group discussion. The researcher was present for all interviews and group discussions. Overall, the flow of conversation was more fluid with the research assistant’s knowledge of Jopará. Participants tended to disclose more information and feel more comfortable when using a mix of the two.

Data Collection Methods. The data collection methods carried out by the author in this research report are interviews and observations. For more details, the author will present an explanation of the data collection methods carried out by the author as below:

Data Collection Methods. This section provides the information about the instruments and procedures used to collect data.

Data Collection Methods. Q4,5) Tools for primary outcome measures must be described as reliable and valid. If ‘face’ validity or ‘content’ validity has been demonstrated, this is acceptable. Reliability and validity can be reported in the study or in a separate study. For example, some standard assessment tools have known reliability and validity. Additional question inserted regarding the method of reporting the subscales as dimensional scales considered to be of a higher standard particularly in the field of negative symptoms.