Advertisement

Implementing Ethnobiological Research: Pretests, Quality Control, and Protocol Reviews

  • Temóteo Luiz Lima da Silva
  • Joelson Moreno Brito Moura
  • Juliane Souza Luiz Hora
  • Edwine Soares de Oliveira
  • André dos Santos Souza
  • Nylber Augusto da Silva
  • Ulysses Paulino Albuquerque
Protocol
Part of the Springer Protocols Handbooks book series (SPH)

Abstract

In this chapter, we present the importance of pretests and pilot studies to identify practical problems in relation to data collection instruments. We also present recommendations for writing and structuring research instruments, as well as ways to test and revise them to ensure their validity and reliability. These stages cannot be neglected and must precede the beginning of the research to ensure that the information that will be obtained can reliably measure the phenomenon studied.

Key words

Validity Reliability Cognitive interview 

References

  1. 1.
    Albuquerque UP, Ramos MA, Lucena RFP, Alencar NL (2014) Methods and techniques used to collect ethnobiological data. Humana, New York, NY, pp 15–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8636-7_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hurst S, Arulogun OS, Owolabi AO et al (2015) Pretesting qualitative data collection procedures to facilitate methodological adherence and team building in Nigeria. Int J Qual Methods 14:53–64. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3121.ChIP-nexusCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aaker DA, Kumar V (2001) Day GS (2001). Wiley, Marketing researchGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rattray J, Jones MC (2007) Essential elements of questionnaire design and development. J Clin Nurs 16(2):234–243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2006.01573.xCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Slattery EL, Voelker CCJ, Nussenbaum B, Rich JT, Paniello RC, Neely JG (2011) A practical guide to surveys and questionnaires. Otolaryngol Neck Surg 144(6):831–837. https://doi.org/10.1177/0194599811399724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mackey A, Gass S (2015) Second language research: methodology and design. Routledge, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Canhota C (2008) Qual a importância do estudo piloto. In: Silva EE (ed) Investigação Passo a Passo: Perguntas e Respostas Para Investigação Clínica. APMCG, Lisboa, pp 69–72Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Combessie J-C (2004) O Método Em Sociologia: O Que É, Como Se Faz. Loyola, Paris, p 2004Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Salmond SS (2008) Evaluating the reliability and validity of measurement instruments. Orthop Nurs 27(1):28–30. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NOR.0000310608.00743.54CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Long T, Johnson M (2000) Rigour, reliability and validity in qualitative research. Clin Eff Nurs 4(1):30–37.  https://doi.org/10.1054/cein.2000.0106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brink PJ (1991) Issues of reability and validity. In: Morse JM (ed) Qualitative nursing research: a contemporary dialogue. Sage, Thousands Oaks, CA, p 344Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sousa VEC, Matson J, Dunn Lopez K (2017) Questionnaire adapting: little changes mean a lot. West J Nurs Res 39(9):1289–1300.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945916678212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Roberts P, Priest H, Traynor M (2006) Reliability and validity in research. Nurs Stand 20(44):41–45.  https://doi.org/10.7748/ns.20.44.41.s56CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gray M, Blake M, Campanelli P (2014) The use of cognitive interviewing methods to evaluate mode effects in survey questions. Field Methods 26(2):156–171.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X13492703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Beatty PC, Willis GB (2007) Research synthesis: the practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opin Q 71(2):287–311.  https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfm006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Willis G (2006) Cognitive interviewing as a tool for improving the informed consent process. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 1(1):9–23.  https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.9CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Quetulio-Navarra M, van der Vaart W, Niehof A (2015) Can third-party help improve data quality in research interviews? A natural experiment in a hard-to-study population. Field Methods 27(4):426–440.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X15572096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zambrana NYP, Bussmann RW, Hart RE et al (2018) To list or not to list? The value and detriment of freelisting in ethnobotanical studies. Nat Plants 4(4):201–204.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-018-0128-7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rodriguez LA, Sana M, Sisk B (2015) Self-administered questions and interviewer–respondent familiarity. Field Methods 27(2):163–181.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X14549315CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Temóteo Luiz Lima da Silva
    • 1
  • Joelson Moreno Brito Moura
    • 1
  • Juliane Souza Luiz Hora
    • 1
  • Edwine Soares de Oliveira
    • 2
  • André dos Santos Souza
    • 1
  • Nylber Augusto da Silva
    • 1
  • Ulysses Paulino Albuquerque
    • 2
  1. 1.Departamento de Biologia, Programa de Pós-graduação em Etnobiologia e Conservação da NaturezaUniversidade Federal Rural de PernambucoRecifeBrazil
  2. 2.Laboratório de Ecologia e Evolução de Sistemas Socioecológicos, Departamento de Botânica, Centro de BiociênciasUniversidade Federal de PernambucoRecifeBrazil

Personalised recommendations