JCPSLP Vol 21 No 2 2019 DIGITAL Edition

Focus group The focus group was held in a conference room at the University of Newcastle and was primarily ran by two members of the research team (one to moderate and facilitate discussion and the other to manually note and keep track of interactions and discussions between participants). Some pre-planned questions for the focus group were prepared (see table 3) based on a summary of related literature, and preliminary findings from part 1, to ensure rigour and consistency of results (Liamputtong, 2013). The questions were broad, centred on the topic, and neutral, thereby avoiding influencing the participants’ responses (Hennick, 2013). See table 3 for a summary of focus group guide questions. To encourage rapport within the group, discussion began with demographic questions about each participant’s experience (Hennick, 2013). Discussions were audiotaped using a SONY ICD UX512F digital handheld device. Data analysis Survey (quantitative) data Descriptive statistics were employed to summarise patterns and trends in the data. Open-ended comments were collated to identify respondents’ commonly reported perspectives Focus groups (qualitative) data All focus group data were transcribed verbatim and imported into NVivo software to aid the coding process, and ease of data storage and retrieval. A deductive content analysis framework was used (Vaismoradi, Turunen, & Bondas, 2013). Using this framework, and before viewing of data commenced, the nature of some of the categories that might emerge from discussion was predicted. The data were divided into coding units and the coding frame tested, in discussion by the researchers, who reached agreement on all content themes. The transcripts were read, re-read, and coded multiple times in an iterative process to ensure that the resultant findings were consistent and true to the data, permitting confident data interpretation (Vaismoradi et al., 2013). To enhance rigour, peer debriefing occurred (between the research team) after the focus group to compare coding, categories and themes and to suggest new ones if required, until full agreement was reached (Ezzy, 2013).

necessitating exclusion of their data from the analysis. Respondents ( n = 54) practised in: NSW ( n = 48), Victoria ( n = 3), and South Australia ( n = 3) in: community health centres ( n = 34), private practice ( n = 7), hospitals ( n = 4), schools ( n = 3), tertiary education ( n = 3), non-government agencies ( n = 2), and preschool ( n = 1). Their mean years’ experience was 9. Just under half (47.2%) reported that 50% to 75% of their current caseloads comprised children with SSD. Range of experience for survey respondents was from 0 to 20+ years (M = 9 years) with most having 0 to 4 years’ experience ( n = 16), then 5 to 9 years’ experience ( n = 15), 10 to 14 years’ experience, ( n = 13), 15 to 19 years’ experience ( n = 5), or over 20 years’ experience ( n = 5). Four survey respondents consented to participate in the focus group. All four were based in NSW and a summary of their practice information is displayed in table 2.

Table 2. Summary of focus group participant information

Participant number

Current practice setting Community health centre

Years of experience with SSD

P1

10 years

P2

Private practice

10 years

P3

Tertiary (clinical) education

15 years

P4

Primary school

20 years

Data collection Survey

The online survey was available for 1 month between May and June 2016 and delivered via Survey Monkey TM . Its design was informed by a literature review on implementing successful surveys (Creswell, 2009). To ensure face validity of this tool, two experienced SLPs gave feedback on its structure and wording. Its 24 questions involved binary and multiple choices, Likert scales, and open-ended comment fields, across four sections: participant/demographic information; normative data; target selection; and the focus group invitation. See table 3 for a summary of survey sections and example questions.

Table 3. Example questions/prompts from survey and focus group

Survey

Section

Types of information

Example questions

Location, setting, experience, caseload Knowledge/sources, perspective on acquisition of velar stops/elimination of velar fronting Target prioritisation, target selection factors for intervention

How long have you worked with children with SSD? In your experience, what percentage of children have not acquired velar stops by 5 years? Which target selection factors guide clinical decision-making considering intervention for velar stops for children?

1. Participant information 2. Normative data and velar stop mastery

3. Target selection

Focus group

Key guiding questions What is your experience with children presenting with speech sound disorders? Do you use norms and if so, which do you use? What are your opinions around the norms specifically relating to velar stops? Do you think that your opinion of when the velar stops are acquired is representative of Australian children? How do you select and prioritise speech sound targets for intervention?

89

JCPSLP Volume 21, Number 2 2019

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au