Lecture in PhD Programme Life Science Education Research UMCU. Course Methods of Life Science Education Research. Utrecht, The Netherlands. abstract Audit trail procedures are applied as a way to check the validity of qualitative research designs, qualitative analyses, and the claims that are made. Audit trail procedures can be conducted based on the three criteria of visibility, comprehensibility, and acceptability (Akkerman et al., 2008). During an audit trail procedure, all documents and materials resulting from the data gathering and the data analysis are assessed by an auditor. In this presentation, we presented a summative audit trail procedure (Agricola, Prins, Van der Schaaf & Van Tartwijk, 2021), whereas in a second study we used a formative one (Agricola, Van der Schaaf, Prins & Van Tartwijk, 2022). For both studies, two different auditors were chosen. For the study presented in Agricola et al. (2021) the auditor was one of the PhD supervisors, while in that presented Agricola et al. (2022) was a junior researcher not involved in the project. The first auditor had a high level of expertise in the study’s topic and methodology. As a result, he was able to provide a professional and critical assessment report. Although the second auditor might be considered to be more objective than the first, as she was not involved in the project, more meetings were needed to explain the aim of the study and the aim of the audit trail procedure. There are many ideas about the criteria that qualitative studies should meet (De Kleijn en Van Leeuwen, 2018). I argue that procedures of checking for interrater agreement and understanding, the triangulation, and audit trail procedures can increase the internal validity of qualitative studies. Agricola, B. T., Prins, F. J., van der Schaaf, M. F., & van Tartwijk, J. (2021). Supervisor and Student Perspectives on Undergraduate Thesis Supervision in Higher Education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 65(5), 877-897. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1775115 Agricola, B. T., van der Schaaf, M. F., Prins, F. J., & van Tartwijk, J. (2022). The development of research supervisors’ pedagogical content knowledge in a lesson study project. Educational Action Research. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2020.1832551 de Kleijn, R. A. M., & Van Leeuwen, A. (2018). Reflections and review on the audit procedure: Guidelines for more transparency. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1-8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918763214 Akkerman, S., Admiraal, W., Brekelmans, M., & Oost, H. (2008). Auditing quality of research in social sciences. Quality & Quantity, 42(2), 257-274. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9044-4
Posterpresentatie ORD 2014 Deze studie is onderdeel van het promotieonderzoek aan de Universiteit Utrecht onder de naam "Grip krijgen op moreel auteurschap van beginnende leraren in het primair onderwijs". De metafoor “moreel auteurschap” wordt gebruikt om vanuit een narratief perspectief het intentioneel moreel leren door de beginnende leraar te kunnen beschrijven en te kunnen onderzoeken. Deze deelstudie is een verkennende studie naar de morele oriëntatie van de beginnende leraar in het primair onderwijs.
Background: Recently, research focus has shifted to the combination of all 24-h movement behaviors (physical activity, sedentary behavior and sleep) instead of each behavior separately. Yet, no reliable and valid proxy-report tools exist to assess all these behaviors in 0–4-year-old children. By involving end-users (parents) and key stakeholders (researchers, professionals working with young children), this mixed-methods study aimed to 1) develop a mobile application (app)-based proxy-report tool to assess 24-h movement behaviors in 0–4-year-olds, and 2) examine its content validity. Methods: First, we used concept mapping to identify activities 0–4-year-olds engage in. Parents (n = 58) and professionals working with young children (n = 21) generated a list of activities, sorted related activities, and rated the frequency children perform these activities. Second, using multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis, we created activity categories based on the sorted activities of the participants. Third, we developed the My Little Moves app in collaboration with a software developer. Finally, we examined the content validity of the app with parents (n = 14) and researchers (n = 6) using focus groups and individual interviews. Results: The app has a time-use format in which parents proxy-report the activities of their child, using eight activity categories: personal care, eating/drinking, active transport, passive transport, playing, screen use, sitting/lying calmly, and sleeping. Categories are clarified by providing examples of children’s activities. Additionally, 1–4 follow-up questions collect information on intensity (e.g., active or calm), posture, and/or context (e.g., location) of the activity. Parents and researchers considered filling in the app as feasible, taking 10–30 min per day. The activity categories were considered comprehensive, but alternative examples for several activity categories were suggested to increase the comprehensibility and relevance. Some follow-up questions were considered less relevant. These suggestions were adopted in the second version of the My Little Moves app. Conclusions: Involving end-users and key stakeholders in the development of the My Little Moves app resulted in a tailored tool to assess 24-h movement behaviors in 0–4-year-olds with adequate content validity. Future studies are needed to evaluate other measurement properties of the app.
MULTIFILE
