A Content Validation of Focus Group Discussions Based on Need Analysis in a Physical Education Training Module for Primary School Teachers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v50.100191Keywords:
focus group discussion, content validity index, physical education, training moduleAbstract
Background: The prevalence of qualitative research methods in educational studies has prompted ongoing discussions regarding their validity and the appropriateness of employed methodologies, processes, and data. This study contributes to this debate by meticulously developing and validating an interview guide for Focus Group Discussions (FGD). The guide aims to determine physical education teachers' module training requirements for preparing Learning and Facilitation Activity (PdPc). Methods: Through a comprehensive process involving five key steps—establishing research objectives, topic and question selection, guide development, expert assessment, and pilot FGD interview—content validity of the FGD interview guide was systematically evaluated using development and validation techniques. Results: Qualitative researchers and physical education lecturers assessed the FGD guide, resulting in a Content Validity Index (CVI) 1.00. Expert recommendations led to refining one of four questions, ensuring clarity and relevance. Based on the pilot FGD results, the FGD guide was further improved, now featuring six main questions and probes that elicit thorough participant responses through strategic probing. Conclusion: Based on the pilot FGD results, the researchers modified the question phrases and structure. The latest FGD guide has six main questions and probes. Probing with more questions elicited more thorough responses from participants. The latest FGD guide has six main questions and probes. We also explore the originality, limits, and advantages of the FGD as an emerging method for gathering qualitative data from physical education teachers involved in PdPc. Practical Implication: This study enhances the FGD method for gathering qualitative data from physical education teachers involved in PdPc and delves into its originality, limits, and advantages. Moreover, the research carries practical implications for curriculum design, policy formation, teacher training, resource allocation, and community involvement—aligning with attaining the government's 21st-century objectives.
Keywords: focus group discussion, content validity index, physical education, education
References
Adhabi, E. A. R., & Anozie, C. B. L. (2017). Literature Review for the Type of Interview in Qualitative Research. International Journal of Education, 9(3), 86. https://doi.org/10.5296/ije.v9i3.11483
Akyurek, E. (2021). An investigation into the relationship between pedagogic inference quality and epistemic cognition of pre-school teachers*. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 2021(92), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2021.92.9
Andacao, A. A., & Linganay, C. J. B. (2021). Leaping through hurdles: Adaptability among female athletes. International Journal of Human Movement and Sports Sciences, 9(4), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.13189/saj.2021.091308
Ayre, C., & Scally, A. J. (2014). Critical values for Lawshe’s content validity ratio: Revisiting the original methods of calculation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 47(1), 79–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175613513808
Barrows, C. W. (2000). An exploratory study of food and beverage training in private clubs. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12(3), 190–197. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596110010320751
Boldireff, A. A. (2021). Questioning standards of evaluation in educational research: Do educational researchers ventriloquize learners’ voices in L2 education? Qualitative Report, 26(6), 1724–1735. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2021.4691
Bores-García, D., Hortigüela-Alcalá, D., Hernando-Garijo, A., & González-Calvo, G. (2020). Analysis of student motivation towards body expression through the use of formative and share assessment (Análisis de la motivación del alumnado hacia la expresión corporal a través del uso de la evaluación formativa y compartida). Retos, 40, 198–208. https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v1i40.83025
Davis, L. L. (1992). Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied Nursing Research, 5(4), 194–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4
Edwards, R., & Holland, J. (2020). Reviewing challenges and the future for qualitative interviewing. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 23(5), 581–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2020.1766767
Fröberg, A., & Lundvall, S. (2022). Sustainable Development Perspectives in Physical Education Teacher Education Course Syllabi: An Analysis of Learning Outcomes. Sustainability (Switzerland), 14(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105955
Gilbert, G. E., & Prion, S. (2016). Making Sense of Methods and Measurement: Lawshe’s Content Validity Index. Clinical Simulation in Nursing, 12(12), 530–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecns.2016.08.002
Guest, G., Namey, E., Taylor, J., Eley, N., & McKenna, K. (2017). Comparing focus groups and individual interviews: findings from a randomized study. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(6), 693–708. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2017.1281601
Hutzler, Y., Meier, S., Reuker, S., & Zitomer, M. (2019). Attitudes and self-efficacy of physical education teachers toward inclusion of children with disabilities: a narrative review of international literature. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24(3), 249–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2019.1571183
Kiger, M. E., & Varpio, L. (2020). Thematic analysis of qualitative data: AMEE Guide No. 131. Medical Teacher, 42(8), 846–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1755030
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. . (2000). Focus Groups. A Practical Guide for Applied Research (3rd edition). In T. Oaks (Ed.), CA: Sage Publications (3rd Editio). CA: Sage Publications.
Kurum, G., & Cinkir, S. (2019). An authentic look at evaluation in education: A school self-evaluation1 model supporting school development. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 2019(83), 253–286. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2019.83.12
Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A Quantitative Approach To Content Validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563–575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
Leisterer, S., & Jekauc, D. (2019). Students’ emotional experience in physical education—a qualitative study for new theoretical insights. Sports, 7(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports7010010
López Secanell, I. (2023). Analysis of the perception of students and teachers about physical education proposals around contemporary art: a case study. Retos, 49, 260–269.
Mallon, S., & Elliott, I. (2019). The emotional risks of turning stories into data: An exploration of the experiences of qualitative researchers working on sensitive topics. Societies, 9(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/soc9030062
Masadeh, M. a. (2012). Focus Group : Reviews and Practices. International Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 2(10), 63–68. http://www.ijastnet.com/journals/Vol_2_No_10_December_2012/9.pdf
Matua, G. A., & Van Der Wal, D. M. (2015). Differentiating between descriptive and interpretive phenomenological research approaches. Nurse Researcher, 22(6), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.22.6.22.e1344
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative Rea: A Guide to Design and Implementation (Fourth edi). Jossey-Bass. www.wiley.com, www.josseybass .com/highereducation
Milano, M., & Ullius, D. (1998). Designing Powerful Training: The Sequential-Iterative Model (J.-B. Pfeiffer (ed.)). A. Wiley Company.
Mujica Johnson, F. N., & Orellana Arduiz, N. D. C. (2020). Emociones del profesorado de educación física: revisión narrativa (2010-2020) (Physical education teacher emotions: narrative review (2010-2020)). Retos, 39, 910–914. https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v0i39.80750
Nurhidayah, Y., Denise, K., & Ruhizan, M. Y. (2023). Global Trends of the Teacher Knowledge of Physical Education: A Bibliometric Analysis Tendencias Globales del Conocimiento Docente de Educación Física: Un Análisis Bibliométrico Nurhidayah. Retos, 49, 174–188.
Oudat, M. A. (2021). The supervisory competencies of physical education supervisors from the point of view of physical education teachers. International Journal of Human Movement and Sports Sciences, 9(2), 185–193. https://doi.org/10.13189/saj.2021.090204
Pacheco, E. F., Villafuerte, J., & López, J. (2022). Physical activity and motivation for learning English as a foreign language in young children in Ecuador. Retos, 44, 988–998. https://recyt.fecyt.es/index.php/retos/index
Powell, C. G., & Bodur, Y. (2019). Teachers’ perceptions of an online professional development experience: Implications for a design and implementation framework. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77, 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.09.004
Pushkarenko, K., Cavell, M., Gosse, N., & Michalovic, E. (2023). Physical literacy and the participant perspective: Exploring the value of physical literacy according to individuals experiencing disability through composite narratives. Journal of Exercise Science and Fitness, 21(3), 237–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesf.2023.03.001
Queirós, A., Faria, D., & Almeida, F. (2017). Strengths and Limitations of Qualitative and Quantitative Research Methods. European Journal of Education Studies, 3(9), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.887089
Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and Development Research: Methods, Strategies, and Issues (L. Akers (ed.); First). Routledge.
Rijo, A. G., Fernández Cabrera, J. M., Hernández Moreno, J., Sosa Álvarez, G., & Pacheco Lara, J. J. (2020). (Re) pensar la competencia motriz ((Re) think motor competence). Retos, 40, 375–384. https://doi.org/10.47197/retos.v1i40.82959
Romero-naranjo, F. J., Sayago-martínez, R., Jiménez-molina, J. B., Francisco, A., & Romero-naranjo, F. J. (2023). Pilot Study of the Assessment of Anxiety and Attention through Body Percussion and Neuromotricity in Secondary School Students in Physical Education, Music and Visual Arts classes. Retos, 47, 573–588.
Sabar. (2008). Informed consent: An instrumental or deceptive principle in qualitative educational research. In Advances in Program Evaluation (Vol. 12, Issue 08). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-7863(08)12004-X
Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality and Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-017-0574-8
Shawer, S. F. (2017). Teacher-driven curriculum development at the classroom level: Implications for curriculum, pedagogy and teacher training. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 296–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.12.017
Sim, J., & Waterfield, J. (2019). Focus group methodology: some ethical challenges. Quality and Quantity, 53(6), 3003–3022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-019-00914-5
Şimşek, Ö., & Yazar, T. (2016). Education Technology Standards Self-Efficacy (ETSSE) Scale: A Validity and Reliability Study. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 16(63), 311–334. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2016.63.18
Stahl, B., Chiarini Tremblay, M., & LeRouge, C. M. (2009). Focus groups and critical social IS research: How the choice of method can promote emancipation of respondents and researchers. 17th European Conference on Information Systems, ECIS 2009.
Stroebel, L. C. E., Hay, J., & Bloemhoff, H. J. (2019). An approach to re-skilling of in-service teachers in physical education in south African schools. South African Journal of Education, 39(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v39n2a1643
Sutherland, D., Ponnock, A. R., Jordan, W. J., Kuriloff, P., & Hoffman, B. (2021). Sustainable Teaching: Three urban teachers make a case for teacher education 3.0. Teaching and Teacher Education, 99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103271
Varga-Atkins, T., McIsaac, J., & Willis, I. (2017). Focus Group meets Nominal Group Technique: an effective combination for student evaluation? Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(4), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2015.1058721
Virginia P. Tilden, Christine A. Nelson, & Barabara A. May. (1990). Use of qualitative methods to enhance content validity. Nurs Res, 39(3), 172–175.
Wang, N., Rahman, M. N. B. A., & Daud, M. A. K. B. M. (2021). Diversified Talent Cultivation Mechanism of Early Childhood Physical Education Under the Full-Practice Concept – Oriented by Preschooler Mental Health and Intelligent Teaching. Frontiers in Psychology, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.593063
Wen, Y., Gwendoline, C. L. Q., & Lau, S. Y. (2021). ICT-Supported Home-Based Learning in K-12: a Systematic Review of Research and Implementation. TechTrends. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00570-9
Werang, B. R., & Leba, S. M. R. (2022). Factors Affecting Student Engagement in Online Teaching and Learning: A Qualitative Case Study. Qualitative Report, 27(2), 555–577. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5165
Widianingsih, L., Triyuwono, I., Djamhuri, A., & Rosidi, R. (2022). University Social Responsibility from the Transformative Ecofeminism Perspective. The Qualitative Report, 27(6), 1688–1709. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2022.5493
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Retos
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and ensure the magazine the right to be the first publication of the work as licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of authorship of the work and the initial publication in this magazine.
- Authors can establish separate additional agreements for non-exclusive distribution of the version of the work published in the journal (eg, to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Is allowed and authors are encouraged to disseminate their work electronically (eg, in institutional repositories or on their own website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as to a subpoena more Early and more of published work (See The Effect of Open Access) (in English).
This journal provides immediate open access to its content (BOAI, http://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#openaccess) on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. The authors may download the papers from the journal website, or will be provided with the PDF version of the article via e-mail.
