A comparison of quantitative and qualitative research methodologies in the evaluation of a voluntary sterilization program
Experience the future of the Tulane University Digital Library.
We invite you to visit the new Digital Collections website.
Description
The purpose of the research was to examine the comparability, relative advantages and limitations of three data collection techniques: in-depth individual interviews, focus groups and a traditional survey. These techniques were used to evaluate four topical areas of a voluntary sterilization program in Mexico: (1) satisfaction with services, (2) informed consent, (3) perceived consequences and benefits, and (4) the decision making process The study was conducted in Ciudad Juarez under the auspices of a private family planning organization serving lower socio-economic class families. Women sterilized at one of the organization's clinics were randomly allocated into three research groups. There were no statistically significant differences among the groups in distributions of age, parity, education or timing of the sterilization procedure. The research consisted of: (Group 1) ten individual in-depth interviews, (Group 2) four focus groups consisting of six to ten women each (total women = thirty six), and (Group 3) a survey of 189 women. The data sets were first analyzed as three independent bodies of information. The findings from these analyses were then compared two at a time. The results of the three comparisons were summarized in order to examine the overall comparability of the three techniques. Two facets of the data were examined: (1) the extent to which the techniques produced consistent information and (2) the quantity and quality of additional and spontaneous information produced via each technique The three techniques were found to produce highly consistent information on two of the four topics examined. On the other two topics, while the findings were still largely consistent, there was more variety and some inconsistency across the data sets. Regarding the spontaneous information, both the quantity and quality depended on the technique and the topic being investigated. The individual in-depth interviews provided significant contextual information and detail about the decision making process. The focus groups furnished some additional detail on two topics Recommendations for future research and evaluations include: (1) let the specific topics being researched determine what data collection techniques are used, (2) combine qualitative and quantitative techniques, (3) increase the use of individual in-depth interviews and (4) standarize the procedures used in the analysis of qualitative data