Data Collection Procedures Clause Samples

Data Collection Procedures. 4.1 The following are minimal site recording guidelines. Forest HPMs or qualified Heritage Program staff shall determine appropriate data collection procedures commensurate with the historical remains identified. 4.2 Based on HPM or qualified Heritage Program staff recommendations, use metal detectors, augers, shovel probes, or other means to minimally test (i.e., generally < 1 cubic meter of soil removed) for buried materials more extensive than are visible and/or verify likely absence of buried deposits. 4.3 Record isolated historic refuse deposits on Region 5 Cultural Resource Records (CRRs) or update existing records to current standards. (a) In California: complete the USDA-Forest Service (Region 5) Primary Record (comparable to DPR 523A Primary Record and DPR 523C Archaeological Site Record). (b) In Nevada: complete the IMACS Site Form, Part A Administrative and Environmental Data, and Part C Historic Sites records.

Data Collection Procedures. Each individual was screened to assess his or her eligibility for participation in the study. Additionally, cognitive capacity was assessed with the Blessed dementia screening index (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 1983); individuals with a score of greater than or equal to 11 (indicating cognitive impairment) were excluded. Individuals who were eligible and consented to participate in the study were given a packet of questionnaires (demographic and psychosocial) to complete and bring them to their first evaluation. Each individual was scheduled for an outpatient visit at the General Clinical Research Center (GCRC) at Emory Hospital. The participants first participated in an exercise treadmill test. The data collector was blinded to the group assignment and met with each participant in the GCRC to verify that they had fasted for the past 12 hours, reviewed all materials, examined skipped or omitted items on the forms, and clarified any responses. The GCRC staff performed a brief health history and physical with all participants. Furthermore, venipuncture for biomarkers (adiponectin, hsCRP, PAI-1, Il-6, lipids) was performed. After all assessments were completed, participants were given scheduling information related to their group assignments (psychoeducation and exercise, exercise, or usual-care groups); the exercise specialist contacted participants in the exercise group. Data entry was completed using REDCap. This program has multiple checks and balances built in internally for researchers to clean data as it is entered. Once researchers enter information into the system, REDCap will label the data as “incomplete,” “unverified,” or “complete.” After the researcher verifies the data entered is complete, the researcher will check that the data is complete. After the data is deemed complete, the research team also went back and cleaned and verified the data further. If data were missing, the research team worked to track down the data or contacted the participants to receive the data. This process was only done for demographic variables. If data were missing for psychosocial scales, a mean substitution of up to 10% was incorporated into the final score. After cleaning the data, the data was transferred into the SPSS, where all statistical analyses were completed. First, descriptive statistics of the population demographic characteristics were conducted. Socio-demographic variables consisted of: age, education, gender, marital status, ethnicity, co-residence, compound care...

Data Collection Procedures. Evidence of meeting Teacher goals and the overall quality of a Teacher's professional performance may be gathered by means of several valid and objective procedures. However, the means used must be appropriate and understood by the participants. Because Teacher goals and the Criteria of Effective Teaching can be stated in observable terms, it is assumed that objective observation of Teacher skills will provide valid data for self- assessment and for the review and evaluation of the Teacher's performance. Supplemental duties performed by Teachers are voluntary. The effectiveness of Teachers performing such duties should be monitored to provide feedback to those performing successfully, to assist those whose performance can improve, and to ensure a positive and fair assessment of each Teacher's performance. Step 1 Initial conference Teachers with a Supplemental Duty contract:* No later than one month after month after the start of the 1a) as a head coach/director** season/activity: 1b) in first year of employment - review job expectations in the activity/duty 1c) if identified as needing assistance 1d) others periodically every three to five years Initial Teachers with a Supplemental No later than one month after conference and goal Duty contract: 2a) coordinators of instruction the start of the school year: - review job expectations setting and subject coordinators - set goals (form P/EV-11:1990, 2b) coordinators of athletics Supplemental Duty Goals) and events managers Step 2 Monitoring All On-going Step 3 Progress conference Any As needed - can be requested by Teacher or administrator Step 4 Final conference A final conference will be held for: all coaches/directors listed Final Conference at the end of the season/ activity/school year in 1a, 1b, 1c, and 1d above; and using form P/EV-3: 1990, all coordinators and others listed Supplemental Duty Contract- in 2a and 2b above Evaluation/ Development Plan The RRTA and the board of education believe it is important for head coaches/directors* to provide the leadership and accept the responsibility for the direction, development, and growth of their program including the professional development of their staffs. To accomplish this purpose each head coach/ director will meet with the appropriate administrator prior to the start of the season to discuss program direction and expectations. This process will include reviewing consistency throughout all grade levels of the affected programs. This process will furthe...

Data Collection Procedures. After receiving ethical approval from Nazarbayev University Graduate School of Education Research Ethics Committee the process of data collection started. The letter of ethics approval is included on p.iii. Institutional ethical permission from a research review board is essential (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2012). The process of data collection started with gaining access to the research sites through providing a letter of invitation and organizing explanatory meetings with school principals. A copy of the letter of invitation to the principal, in English, and Russian are included in Appendix

Data Collection Procedures. Ethical principles and standards are important components of research. First, the description of the research procedure was provided to the review board of Nazarbayev University and approval was gained to conduct fieldwork (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2014). Furthermore, permission to conduct the research was obtained from the principals first and then gatekeepers who helped to contact the participants. I called the principal of two schools and told them about my research and obtained permission. Then my gatekeepers were head teachers for scientific and methodological work who gave me teachers’ telephone numbers and organized a meeting with them. I held a meeting with teachers to explain my research and invited them to be my participants. They were acquainted with the purpose of the study, their rights, potential benefits, and possible risks.The selection of participants was on a voluntary basis and they were provided with a consent form prior to the interview which the participants signed on the day of the interview. The teachers were interviewed in the online and in school (four online, one in an empty classroom). Furthermore, the time and location were agreed upon. All interviews were conducted in Kazakh, according to the participants’ preference; the shortest interview lasted 30 minutes, the longest interview lasted 110 minutes. An audio recorder was used, with the participants’ permission, to tape the interview. Afterwards, I transcribed the audio data and translated the transcripts into English. All five interviews were conducted between the 22nd of December and the 7th of February, 2022.

Data Collection Procedures. The five different schools intentionally chosen were located in different districts of the city for the research. In order to recruit participants meetings were arranged with school principals beforehand to provide information about study purpose. All principals approached except one were eager to help and support this study, since it raised questions of an important social issue in Kazakhstan. However, one of the school principals stated that such problems are not related to their school, since it is located in a new decent area where students and their parents are only focused on academic achievements. As soon as the permission was obtained from school principals, then a meeting with teachers was set up in order to request their participation. Further the time and place of interview was arranged with the biology teachers who agreed to participate. Before the day of the interview, a call was made in advance to confirm the upcoming meeting with each biology teacher. Most of the participants chose to be interviewed at their school during the school break. Five out of nine teachers were from Kazakh speaking schools and four of them were representatives of Russian speaking schools. Due to the ethical consideration in order to provide anonymity, all respondents of the interview were given pseudonyms which were labeled as BT1, BT2 and etc. With the permission of the participants, all data was recorded as well as taking reflective notes throughout the interview process that could be referred to during the analysis. The collected interview data was stored securely on a personal laptop which is password protected. All audio taped information was transcribed in written form with no personal information about interview respondents. The data collection process lasted approximately one month. The data analysis process followed the techniques described by ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇ and ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇ (2015) and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2013). The recorded audio data were transcribed and translated in English. These translated transcriptions of the taped interview were summarized to highlight particular insights. After analyzing the transcribed data then began the manually decoding or reflecting on the data to determine the deeper meaning (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2013). Then the encoding process was employed to label the text. During the multiple listening and reading the gathered data, certain words and phrases were repeated by participants in all interviews. In order to identify emerging themes refining the c...

Data Collection Procedures. As determined by the participants, 10 interviews were conducted at the clinic, 16 interviews were conducted at the participants’ home, and one interview was conducted at another hospital where the participant was receiving outpatient treatment. All interviews were completed in a single session, though prior to each interview I gave the participant the option of splitting the interview into two sessions. Except for two, all interviews were completed with me and an additional interviewer, an African American retired nurse who had worked most recently as an organizer for a residential community. Both interviewers went through training in qualitative interviewing prior to study interviews and then practiced interviewing volunteers who agreed to be taped for educational purposes. The practice interview tapes as well as the study tapes were reviewed by both interviewers in order to critique the interviewing techniques. The two interviewers exchanged feedback throughout the study in order to improve the interviewing techniques. At the interview appointment, we first reviewed the informed consent procedures with the participant. The entire consent and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Authorization Form were read out loud (See Appendix C and D). Then the interviewer verbally confirmed that the participant fully understood the procedures and purpose of the study and was still willing to participate. After introducing myself and the other interviewer, I verbally administered the demographic questionnaire (see Appendix E) and the ESAS. This second administration of the ESAS was used to evaluate the current symptom state and to serve as reference for the interview. After the paperwork and instruments were completed, the interview began and the recording started. The recorded interviews lasted approximately 60 minutes on average with a range of 22 to 82 minutes. An interview guide, based on a literature review, served as a template during the interview process. All interviews were audio-taped, two recorders being used simultaneously as a preventive measure against the possibility of data loss. Both interviewers shared the responsibilities of the interview. In general, both interviewers focused on the participant, actively listening while asking questions and probing for more information as needed. I usually began the interview while the interviewer documented procedural details, such as a description of the environment and the appearance of th...

Data Collection Procedures. Focus group participants completed a consent form prior to beginning the focus group, and a short survey at the end of the focus group discussion. The survey included questions regarding demographic and garden context. To guide the focus group discussion, a semi-structured discussion guide based on TPB guidelines (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ et al., 2004) was developed to cover topics such as beliefs and risk perception related to soil contamination (Appendix A). The focus group moderator first welcomed the participants, introduced the purpose of the focus group, and then explained the focus group process. Focus groups were facilitated and audio recorded by the first author (C.H.). The focus groups were conducted at quiet meeting rooms at Atlanta libraries and county Extension conference rooms. Focus group recordings were transcribed verbatim, and a code book was developed based on TPB research questions (deductive codes) and salient themes from the focus group transcripts (inductive codes). Two analysts independently reviewed and coded the focus group transcripts. Intercoder agreement was established by comparing the independently coded transcripts and resolving any coding discrepancies through discussion. The coded themes (nodes) were entered into NViVo 10 (QSR International Pty Ld, Melbourne, Australia), and content analysis was performed using NVivo summary reports by Node output to identify themes and patterns based on the primary research questions. Primary themes and summaries were based on frequency of mentions and consistency across focus groups. Descriptive data from the community garden survey were analyzed using STATA 15 (Statacorp LP, College Station, Texas, 2009).

Data Collection Procedures. ‌ An important objective when collecting data is to guarantee anonymity and for this reason it was decided to conduct the data collection process face-to-face or by Skype. For the convenience of participants, I used the email correspondences as well, but preferably, I have tried to have face-to-face interviews. Therefore, considering face-to-face interview with participants was a best way and option to gather necessary data and it helped to interpret verbal and non-verbal cues (▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, 2003). In practice, some participants asked to do it by telephone due to their busy schedule. According to ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ (2014), a telephone interview is the alternative useful “way to contact participants when they are not available face-to-face” (p 242).