Quantitative research method 500 w

UU-EDU 731-1 1

WEEK 10-CHAPTER 3-RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Topic goals

 Define and describe triangulation

 Identify different types of triangulation

 State the importance of triangulation in research

UU-EDU 731-1: Dissertation

UU-EDU 731-1 2

Table of Contents

Triangulation .................................................................................................................................... 3

Importance of triangulation ............................................................................................................... 3

Variants of triangulation (Types of triangulation) .............................................................................. 4

i.Data triangulation ........................................................................................................................... 4

ii.Investigator triangulation (Researcher – collection or analysis) ...................................................... 4

iii.Theory triangulation ..................................................................................................................... 4

iv.Methodological triangulation ........................................................................................................ 4

v.Environmental triangulation (Location) .......................................................................................... 4

Institutionalizing triangulation. ......................................................................................................... 7

Trustworthiness ................................................................................................................................ 8

i.Dependability: ................................................................................................................................ 8

ii.Confirmability: .............................................................................................................................. 8

iii.Credibility: .................................................................................................................................. 8

iv.Transferability: ............................................................................................................................. 8

Validity and Reliability of Research .................................................................................................. 8

Content Validity ............................................................................................................................... 9

Construct Validity........................................................................................................................... 10

Criterion Related Validity ............................................................................................................... 11

Face Validity .................................................................................................................................. 12

Factors Influencing Validity ............................................................................................................ 12

Reliability ....................................................................................................................................... 13

Test-retest method .......................................................................................................................... 14

Equivalent Forms ............................................................................................................................ 14

Measures of Internal Consistency .................................................................................................... 14

Split – Half method ......................................................................................................................... 15

Reference List................................................................................................................................. 16

UU-EDU 731-1 3

TRIANGULATION

The term ‘triangulation’ is located in the field of navigation where a location is determined

by using the angles from two known points. In simple terms, triangulation could be viewed a

method that is used to increase the credibility and validity of the research findings.

Credibility is viewed as the trustworthiness and how believable a study is. Validity is

concerned with the extent to which a study accurately reflects or evaluates the concept or

ideas being investigated. In research, triangulation involves the use of more than one

approach to researching a question. The main objective of triangulation is to increase

confidence in the findings by confirming a proposition through the use of two or more

independent measures. This means that the combination of findings from two or more

rigorous approaches would provide a more comprehensive picture of the results than either

approach could do alone.

Importance of triangulation

i. Triangulation help ensure that fundamental biases arising from the use of a single

method or a single observer are overcome.

ii. Triangulation is also an effort to help explore and explain complex human behaviour

using a variety of methods to offer a more balanced explanation to readers. It is a

procedure that enables validation of data and can be used in both quantitative and

qualitative studies.

iii. Triangulation increase confidence and validity of the data, a profound understanding

of the case at hand, and ground-breaking perspectives on the study topic.

iv. Triangulation aids in discovering the deviant or off-quadrant aspect of a phenomenon,

Divergent results from multi methods could lead to an enriched explanation of the

research process.

v. Finally, the use of triangulation leads to a synthesis or integration of theories. In this

sense, it is methodological triangulation, i.e. to bring diverse theories to bear on a

common problem.

UU-EDU 731-1 4

vi. It provided the researcher with challenges to improve her comprehension of the

various reasons for the existence of inconsistencies between two sets of data (Patton

1990).

Variants of triangulation (Types of triangulation)

i. Data triangulation

ii. Investigator triangulation (Researcher – collection or analysis)

iii. Theory triangulation

iv. Methodological triangulation

v. Environmental triangulation (Location)

Data triangulation involves the use of a number of data sources, including time, space and

persons, in a study. Findings can be corroborated and any weaknesses in the data can be

compensated for by the strengths of other data, thereby increasing the validity and reliability

of the results. The approach has been used in many sectors to strengthen conclusions about

findings and to reduce the risk of false interpretations.

It also involves the cross-checking of the consistency of given factual data items from

different sources through various methods at different times, (Patton 1990). In this case data

triangulation involves the matching of qualitative data brought from structured interviews

with quantitative data for example from the Economic questionnaire s and the Demographic

information questionnaire.

UU-EDU 731-1 5

Methodological triangulation involves the use of multiple methods to study a situation or

phenomenon. The intention is to decrease the deficiencies and biases that come from any

single method. This type of triangulation is very similar to the mixed method approaches

used in social science research, where the results from one method are used to enhance,

augment and clarify the results of another. It is also a variation on data triangulation, with an

emphasis on using data collected by different methods as opposed to data collected for

different programmes, locations, populations, etc. The two types of methodological

triangulation are:

i. Within- method triangulation

ii. Between method triangulation

For example in population studies, various methods are used to collect data from the

population. For instance, registration in which registers and licenses are predominantly

important for full enumeration, but are restricted to variables that change gradually.

Questionnaires can also be used where forms are completed and returned by respondents.

This is an inexpensive method that is helpful where literacy rates are high and respondents

are accommodating. Interview is another method, in this case forms are completed through

an interview with the respondent. More expensive than questionnaires, but they are better for

more complex questions, low literacy or less co-operation. Apart from this, direct

observations, thus, making direct measurements is the most truthful method for various

variables, such as fertility, but is often expensive. In this regard, various methods can be used

to study a given population phenomena. If the conclusions from each of the methods are the

same, then validity is established. Thus, it all boils down to the fact that triangulation

incorporates a myriad of research techniques, hence clearly elucidating triangulation as a

technique with its parameters

UU-EDU 731-1 6

Investigator triangulation is the use of more than one investigator, interviewer, observer,

researcher or data analyst in a study. The ability to confirm findings across investigators

without prior discussion or collaboration between them can significantly enhance the

credibility of the findings. Investigator triangulation is particularly important for decreasing

bias in gathering, reporting and/or analysing study data.

In investigator triangulation the key strength is the reduction of bias in gathering, reporting

and analysing data. There is a general sense that having multiple investigators not only

reduces bias but can also have a positive impact on both validity and reliability. Also, most

investigators are skilled at one type of research and/or data collection methodology; for

example, an investigator is most adept at either quantitative or qualitative research. Having

multiple investigators using different methodologies, which would actually include

investigator triangulation and methods triangulation, would also ensure a broader and

potentially more balanced perspective on the situation being examined. In addition,

corroborating data and verifying their interpretation across multiple investigators can

increase the value of the findings.

For instance, suppose a researcher is conducting a research on voting behaviour and patterns

or people’s perception towards government policies at a rally, the researcher would line up

different investigators in different places to serve as evaluators. The researcher would give

them the same observation check sheet. While this is an effective method of establishing

validity, it may not always be practical to gather different investigators due to time

constraints and individual schedule.

Theory triangulation is the use of multiple theories or hypotheses when examining a

situation or phenomenon. The idea is to look at a situation/phenomenon from different

perspectives, through different lenses, with different questions in mind. The different theories

or hypotheses do not have to be similar or compatible; in fact, the more divergent they are,

the more likely they are to identify different issues and/or concerns.

UU-EDU 731-1 7

In theoretical triangulation the strength is its ability to look deeper and more broadly at

findings. Specifically, using only one theory, perspective or hypothesis can decrease the

number of alternative explanations for a situation or phenomenon. In fact, using multiple

even rival perspectives or hypotheses can challenge analysts to look beyond obvious

explanations and identify sharper ways of examining and explaining findings. If the theories

and/or hypotheses being used in theoretical triangulation are not well defined, this type of

triangulation can be confusing and unproductive. It is also possible that the use of opposing

theories/hypotheses in triangulation could be equally confusing and unproductive.

Conversely, analysts must remember that findings are not automatically more credible

because they have been supported by similar theories/hypotheses. While all types of

triangulation must be very carefully managed in order to ensure that the process has integrity

and the results are credible, there is a heightened need for vigilance with theoretical

triangulation.

Data is collected basing on given theories, which informs the study. A good example to

cement this point is that of using Malthusian theory and Ester Boserup to study the effects of

population growth. Another example is of using Foucault’s panoptic gaze to study

surveillance in sociology of medicine. Similarly, functionalist, conflict or Marxist

perspectives can inform a study. This implies that it uses multiple theoretical perspectives to

scrutinize and interpret the data Thus, it is a deductive approach concerned with the

beginning from the known to the unknown. One may argue that despite the problems of

putting theories into practice, theories are regarded as having better consistence with existing

facts than common sense and not only this but rather theories summarize and organize a great

deal of information; often theories are broader in scope. Hence working towards the

betterment of theory triangulation as a research technique

Institutionalizing triangulation involves the identification of capable and credible

organizations that will effectively ‘own’ the process. In other words, these organizations

would have primary responsibility for ensuring the consistent and high-quality use of

triangulation to provide useful data on the country’s HIV response.

UU-EDU 731-1 8

Trustworthiness

i. Dependability: showing that the findings are consistent and could be repeated

ii. Confirmability: a degree of neutrality or the extent to which the findings of a study

are shaped by the respondents and not researcher bias, motivation, or interest

iii. Credibility: confidence in the 'truth' of the findings

iv. Transferability: showing that the findings have applicability in other contexts.

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF RESEARCH

Validity involves the extent to which an instrument measures what it purports to measures. It

deals with basic honesty – honesty in the sense of doing what one promises to do. It is

concerns entirely the purpose, means employed and means actually achieved. In all these,

there is always a gap in between purpose and practice. The reliability is measured in degree -

it can be low, average or high. In research it is the results of the research instrument and not

the instrument per see. Consequently, we shall discuss four types of validity and they are:

i. Content validity

ii. (a) Criterion – related validity

(b) Concurrent validity

iii. Construct validity

iv. Feel validity

UU-EDU 731-1 9

Content Validity

It is an important and useful criterion of an instrument, for example achievement test is pre-

test and post-test. It is a measure of the degree to which an instrument (test, questionnaire,

etc) covers a representative sample of content areas. It is expected to cover the cognitive,

effective and psychomotor areas of the subject – matter (content). It is our concern in content

validity to determine whether the sample is representative of the larger universe which is

supposed to represent, so as to establish the content validity of a research instrument the

following procedures can be followed:

i. List the subject content areas and expected behaviours and/or skills. For achievement

test in Mathematics for Basic 8, you can consult the mathematics curriculum, syllabus

for Upper Basic School. Analyze the syllabus topic by topic in relation to expected

behaviours/skills.

ii. Weighting of topics and objectives. The test-developer must decide the weighting of

each test item realizing the objectives of instruction the curriculum and time to be

spent on testing and

iii. a table of specifications and construction of test-items. This is the test blue print and

it is a two-way grid which relates the content areas and objectives/skills. With

appropriate allocation of weight to area and the skills/objectives. The table must be

able to contain a number of test items in each cell. This concept will be properly

death with in subsequent module.

UU-EDU 731-1 10

It is important to note that a test/instrument that is content valid for one purpose may be

completely inappropriate for another. Also, an instrument with established content validity

for measuring learners’ achievement at the end of a course, may not be valid from the point

of view of content for diagnosing learner – weaknesses. Basically, content validity is

subjective as it depends on the assessors estimate of the degree of correspondence between

what is taught (or what should be taught) and what is tested. It requires a careful

examination of the stated objectives of the course in terms of course content and target

abilities or skills and a study of the size and depth of realization of their coverage. This

cannot be objectively measured.

Construct Validity

Construct means tract or ideas developed in the mind to define, identify or explain

psychological attributes such as intelligence, creativity, aptitude, perception, attitude, study-

habit, reasoning ability, etc. Construct validity is the degree to which a research instrument

measures a specific trait or psychological trait. For example, if a researcher is interrelated to

measure students school attitude, the constructed instrument on school attitude will be

administered on sample of students collect and analyze their responses. The research will try

to find out whether the instrument measures attitude to school subjects or any other construct

or whether it actually measure’s school attitude. If the instrument measures school attitude

then the research was discovered a theory for explaining variance in individual scores.

Construct validity is complex and can be difficult to determine. Some methods of obtaining

construct validity are:

i. Analysing of the mental precisions required by the instrument/test item;

ii. Experimental interventions

iii. Correlation with other instruments;

iv. Factor analysis

v. Internal consistency, etc.

UU-EDU 731-1 11

These methods will not be discussed in detail (see other text). Finally, a test will have

construct validity if its scores vary in ways suggested by the theory underlying the construct.

In other words, construct validity is the degree to which one can under certain construct in a

psychological theory from the test/instrument score.

Criterion Related Validity

This can be objectively measured and declared in terms of numerical indices. It focuses on a

set of external criterion as its yardstick of measurement, and it may be a date of concurrent

information of a future performance.

i. Concurrent validity implies

i. two tests/instruments whereby one whose validity is being examined and the

one with proven validity (which is taken as the criterion) and they are

supposed to cover the same content area of a given level and the same

objectives

ii. the population for both the tests/instruments remains the same and the two

tests/instruments are administered in apparently similar environment and

iii. the performance data on both the tests/instruments are obtainable almost

simultaneously (which is not possible in the case of predictive criterion)

ii. Predictive validity: It refers to the degree to which the results of a test forecast or

predict future behavioural change of the testee. The basis of this is that success in the

criterion measure will be related to the predictive measure.

UU-EDU 731-1 12

The correlation of a concurrent criterion yields concurrent validity while the correlation of

predictive criterion also yields predictive validity. The concurrent validity serves the purpose

of measuring proficiency the predictive validity is meant for predictive function. The

concurrent criterion of psychological tests/instruments, especially tests of intelligence

whereas predictive criterion is crucial in selection and placement test in bank recruitment,

schools and mission, etc.

Face Validity

This refers to the extent the instrument/test seems logically related to what is being tested.

Face validity may not be dependable. A test may look right without being rational or even

useful. For example, a teacher prepared test/instrument in a course containing 10 items and

appear to have face validity but on detailed analysis of the items it only contains items in just

half of the content area, that is, it lack content validity. It is not a useful approach to

determine validity of an instrument/test.

Factors Influencing Validity

Certain factors may influence instrument/test results. Y validity, an/a instrument/test

measured what is expected to measure but some factors may limit the validity and they are:

i. Factors inherent in the instrument. Such factors of unclear instructions, vocabulary,

level of difficulty of items ambiguous items inappropriate time, etc.

ii. Factors inherent in the instrument administration, scoring, possible unhealthy

physical and psychological environment which may have adverse effects on the

respondents. If the test/instrument room is congested, poorly ventilated, poor sitting

arrangement noise factor (physical and psychological) – such factors could have

negative effect on the respondents.

iii. Factors affecting the validity co-efficient – validity is influenced by the spread of

scores, nature of the group and attitude to be measured, etc.

UU-EDU 731-1 13

Reliability

Reliability refers to the degree of consistency between two sets of measure or observations

obtained with the same instrument of its equivalent. While validity we have discussed relates

to the questions of what to test, the reliability relates to the question of accuracy with which

the instrument is measured. If a researcher were to measure the same instrument twice the

logical expectation would be for the researcher to get more or less the same score both the

times, but this does not happen always. Differences in scores do happen always. Differences

in scores do occur and they are likely with every repetition of an instrument.

The difference may be done to:

i. trait instability – characteristic changes across time.

ii. Sampling inconsistency – particular questions on instrument may affect the score

iii. Administrator inconsistency – instrument – timing or testee report with test tester

iv. Lack of objectivity in terms of:

i. The item

ii. Response which the item permits.

iii. Scoring method used

Error Score: Two types are possible: systematic error and random error when an error is

consistent, it is a systematic error whereas errors which do remain the same on every

occasion of measurement. As regards reliability Grondlund (1981) stated the following

clarifications:

i. Reliability refers to the results obtained with an evaluation of an instrument and not

to the instrument itself. It is appropriate to speak of the reliability of the instrument

‘scores’ or of the ‘measurement’ than of the ‘test’ or of the ‘instrument’.

ii. That instrument scores are not reliable in general an estimate of reliability always

refers to a particular type of consistence.

UU-EDU 731-1 14

iii. Reliability is a necessary but not insufficient condition for validity. A low reliability

can restrict the degree of validity.

iv. Reliability is primarily statistical in nature – reliability coefficient.

There are four types of reliability. They are:

Test-retest method

This is obtained by administering a test/instrument twice to the same group with a

considerable time interval between the two administrations and correlating the two sets of

scores thus obtained. The correlation coefficient obtained provides the estimate of the

reliability and a measure of stability offer a period of time. The time interval between

administration of the instrument/test should not be to short or too long. The appropriate time-

interval will be dictated by the type of instrument and the utility of the results.

Equivalent Forms

As a result of the problem of time – interval for a second administration of the instrument the

method of equivalent forms was developed. In this method, two parallel or alternate form of

test or research instrument will be administered concurrently to the same students. The scores

of the two sets are obtained and the correlation coefficient of the two is computed and the

result is interpreted as the reliability coefficient. The coefficient provides a measure of

equivalence.

Measures of Internal Consistency

The methods discussed above are concerned with consistency between two sets of scores

obtained on two different test-administrations whereas this method of internal consistency

takes into consideration the scores obtained on a single test administration. The estimates of

reliability obtained through these methods are mostly indices of homogeneity of item in the

test or the extent of overlap between the responses to an item and the total scores.

UU-EDU 731-1 15

Split – Half method

This is a measure of internal consistency. It requires the administration of a single test

instrument to the students once then the items of the instrument are split into two parts.

In other words, the total set of items is divided into halves. The scores on the halves are

correlated to obtain the estimate of reliability. You can split the items using odd and even

numbers, or randomly dividing the items into two groups, etc. You can see that the result you

get from it for a half test. Therefore, it is corrected using the spearman-brown formula.

Further reading from weekly ebook: Chapter 4: What approach with which Data?

& Chapter 6: Research design

UU-EDU 731-1 16

REFERENCE LIST

Akaranga S.I. and Jude Ongong’a (2013). “Work Ethics for University Lecturers: An

Example of Nairobi and Kenyatta International Journal of Arts and Commerce, 2 (8)

8-22.

Arminger, B. (1997). “Ethics in Nursing Research: Profile, principles, perspective”. Nursing

Research. 26 (5):330-333.

Beauchamp T.L & Childress, J.F. (2001). Principles of Biomedical ethics, 5th ed, Oxford

University Press: Oxford.

Bell, E. & Bryman, A. (2007). “The ethics of management research: an exploratory content

analysis”, British Journal of Management. 18(1) 63-77.

Blumberg, B, Cooper D.R, & Schindler P.S. (2005). Business Research Methods, Mc Graw

Hill: Berkshire.

Brown, A. & Dowling, P. (1998). Doing research/reading research: A mode of interrogation.

London: Falmer Press.

Brown, S. & Smith, B. (1996). Resource-based leaning. London: Kogan Press.

Burns N. & Grove, S.K. (2005). The practice of nursing research: Conduct critique and

utilization, 5th ed,St. Louis, MO, Elsevier/Saunders.

Churchil, L.R (1995). “Beneficence”. Encyclopedia of Bioethics. Simon & Shuster,

Macmillan: New York.

Cohen, L., & Manion, L. (2000). Research methods in education. Routledge. p. 254. (5th

edition).

UU-EDU 731-1 17

Cozby, P.C. (1993). Methods in behavioural research. London: Mayfield Publishers.

Fouka G. & Mantzorou M. (2011). “What are the major ethical issues in conducting

research? Is there a conflict between the research ethics and the nature of nursing?”

Health Science Journal, 5 (1), 3-14.

Frankena K. W. (2001). Ethics. Prentice Hall of India: New Delhi.

Kour S. (2014). Ethical and Legal issues in Educational research. Indian Journal of Applied

Research, 4(6).

Kovacs, A. (1985).The Research process: Essentials of skill development. F.A Davis

Company: Philadelphia, USA.

Mugenda A.G. (2011). Social Science Research Methods: Theory and Practice, ARTS Press:

Nairobi.

Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Method, 2nd Ed. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

Saunders M, Lewis P. & Thornhill A. (2011). Research Methods for Business Students, 5th

ed, Pearson: New Delhi.

Shah, N. (2011). “Ethical Issues in biomedical Research publication”. Journal of

Conservative Dentistry, 14(3), 205-207.

Treece E.W. &Treece J.W. (1982). Elements of Research in Nursing, Mosby: St.Louis.

Grundhund, N. E. (1976) Measurement and Evaluation in Teaching. New York: Macmillian

Publishers