CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the methodology that will be adopted during the study. It describes and discusses; the research design,  sample size and selection, the data collection methods  used and their corresponding data collection instruments, data management and analysis procedure as well as steps that will be taken to ensure validity and reliability during the study and measurement of variables.

3.2 Research Design

The study will adopt a cross sectional design. The cross sectional design will be adopted because data will be collected from a cross section of respondents in the health facilities in Ibanda at a given point in time as suggested by Amin (2005).  Since the study seeks to examine the relationship between variables, a simple bivariate correlation design will be adopted to determine the relationship between organizational capacity, top management, quality of evaluations and utilization of evaluation findings.

The study will use both qualitative and quantitative approaches. The quantitative approach will be adopted because the study intends to examine the factors affecting the utilization of M&E data. Such an endeavor can best be achieved when a quantitative approach is used because it allows for collecting numeric data on observable individual behavior of samples, then subjecting these data to statistical analysis (Amin, 2005:5).

A qualitative approach will also be adopted to enable the researcher capture data that will be left out by the quantitative approach. This will be aimed at capturing more in-depth information on the topic under investigation.

3.3 Study Population

According to UBO, (2019) there is a total of 150 staff in Ibanda district local government. This is the total population that will be used in the study, this specific population has been arrived at due to their experience and knowledge on the subject matter on utilization of monitoring and evaluation findings in public health facilities in Ibanda district.

3.4 Study Sample

The study sample will be comprised of 134 respondents. The sample size will be arrived at using the predetermined table for determining sample size by Krejicie and Morgan (1970) as cited in Amin (2005) see Appendix III.

Table 1: Sample Size Determination

Source: Chief Administrative Office, Ibanda District (2017)

3.5 Sampling Techniques and Procedure

A number of sampling techniques will be used to select respondents to the study namely; simple random and purposive sampling techniques. The lower level Staff will be selected using simple random sampling technique. Simple random sampling will be used because it ensures generalizability of findings and minimizes bias (Sekaran, 2003).  Purposive sampling technique will be used to select the hospital administrators. These key informants will be purposively sampled because they are believed to have technical and specialized knowledge about the topic under investigation by virtue of the offices that they hold.

3.6 Data collection Methods

The section presents data collection methods which include survey method, interview and documentary review.

3.6.1 Survey Method

The study will use the questionnaire method to collect data. The questionnaire will be used because it allows for the collection of data from a big group of respondents in a short period as suggested by Mugenda and Mugenda (1999: 107). The questionnaire will also be used because it allows busy respondents fill it at their convenient time. It also allows respondents express their views and opinions without fear of being victimized (Oso & Onen, 2008:18).

3.6.2 Interview Method

The study will employ interview method. Interviews in this study will help the researcher obtain more information on the topic under investigation. Interviews will be used because they fetch a variety of ideas needed for the study and gives a deeper understanding of the topic. This method will also be used because it will offer the researcher an opportunity to adapt questions, clarify the questions by using the appropriate language, clear doubts and establish rapport and probe for more information (Sekaran, 2003:253).

3.6.3 Document Review Method

The researcher will review documents in order to obtain recorded information that is related to the issue under investigation. This method will be used because it enables the researcher access data at his convenient time, obtain data that are thoughtful in that the informants have given attention in obtaining them and enables the researcher obtain data in the language of the respondent (Oso & Onen, 2008: 45).

3.7 Data Collection Instruments

The instruments used in this study will be questionnaire, interview guide and document review checklist.

3.7.1 Self-Administered Questionnaire

The study will employ a questionnaire as a tool of data collection. The questionnaire for staff will have 5 sections (see appendix I). Section A will deal with the demographic characteristics of the respondents, section B will focus on technical capacity, Section C will focus on financial capacity, Section D will be concerned with the quality of evaluation activities and section E will be concerned with the utilization of M&E findings.  The questionnaires will be closed ended. Closed ended questions will be developed to help respondents make quick decisions; in addition, closed ended questions will help the researcher to code the information easily for subsequent analysis and narrow down the error gap while analyzing data as observed by Sekaran (2003:231).

3.7.2 Interview Guide

An unstructured interview will be used as a tool for collecting in depth information from the key informants. The guide will have list of topical issues and questions which will be explored in the course of conducting the interviews. The guide will be drawn with the questions soliciting for the perception of the key informants regarding the factors affecting the utilization of M&E findings within the public health facilities. The interview guide will be used because it obtains in-depth data which may not be possible to obtain when using self-administered questionnaires (Mugenda & Mugenda, 1999:17; Kakoza, 1999:27).

3.7.3 Documentary Review Checklist

A document review checklist will be used to collect more in-depth data on the topic under investigation. This will also enable the researcher to supplement the data that is acquired from the interviews and questionnaires. The researcher will analyzed the documents and publications related to the study topic. Documents that are expected to be reviewed include Ministry of Health reports, Journals, and Newspapers.

3.8 Validity and Reliability of the Research Instruments

3.8.1 Validity

Validity is defined as the extent to which results can be accurately interpreted and generalized to other populations (Oso & Onen, 2008). While Borg & Gall, 1989 as cited in Onyinkwa, (2013) validity is defined as the degree to which results obtained by the research instrument correctly represented to the phenomenon understudy and Mugenda & Mugenda, (1999) as the accuracy and meaningfulness of inferences which are based on the research results.

Amin, (2005) recommended minimum CVI of 0.7 to be used. Validity will be tested using content validity index which involves judges scoring the relevancy of the questions in the instruments in relation to the study variables.

The formula for Content Validity Index is;

CVI =

Where CVI = content validity

n= number of items indicated relevant.

N = total no. of items in the instrument

In this study, validity will be achieved by establishing content validity. The researcher will achieve content validity by using the experts to assess the validity of the research instrument. The experts especially research supervisors and consultants from UTAMU will be given data collection tools to assess whether the items in the instruments are valid in relation to research topic, objectives, and questions. From the instruments they will declare some items valid and others invalid. Those declared invalid will be dropped, others adjusted, while the valid ones will be maintained.  Then content validity index (CVI) will be computed by dividing the number of items declared valid by total number of items/questions in the data collection instrument.

3.8.2 Reliability

According to Mugenda and Mugenda, (2003) reliability is the measure of the extent to which research instruments are able to provide the same results upon being tested repeatedly.

Crobach’s coefficient alpha (a) as recommended by Amin, (2005, P.302) will be used to test the reliability of the research instrument. The instrument is deemed reliable if reliable of 0.7 and above is obtained and therefore, it will be adopted for use in the data collection.

Formula for reliability is

=       ( )

Where  = alpha reliability co efficiency.

K=Number of items included4 in the questionnaire

= sum of variance of individual items

= variance of all items in the instrument.

To ensure credibility and trust worthiness of qualitative data the researcher will ensure that only the officials who are employees of Ibanda District local government will be interviewed.

The coefficient ranges between a=0.00 for no reliability, a =1.00 for perfect reliability. The closer alpha gets to 1.0 the better. If the study findings result to Cronbanch’s Alpha of 0.7 and above, this will signify that research instrument is good enough for the study. According to Amin (2005), all the measurements in the instrument that show adequate levels of internal consistency of cronbach’s alpha of 0.77 and above are accepted as reliable.

3.9 Data Collection Procedure

The researcher will obtain a letter of introduction from UTAMU which will be presented to the authorities at in the public health units in Ibanda District and after that she will obtain a list of all the staff in the organization.

The researcher will randomly select respondents to participate in the study, a self-administered questionnaire will be used to collect information from the above mentioned respondents.

The researcher will also purposively select senior and middle level managers who will be interviewed.

3.10 Data Analysis

3.10.1 Analysis of quantitative Data

The statistical package which will be used for analysis of data in this study is the SPSS version 16.0. Different statistical techniques will be used namely: correlation and regression analysis. The upper level of statistical significance for hypothesis testing will be at 5%. All statistical test results will be computed at 2-tailed level of significance.

Descriptive statistics namely frequency counts, percentages will be used to analyze the respondents’ demographic characteristics and the mean and standard deviation will be used to analyze the respondents’ opinions on the factors affecting the utilization of M&E data within the public health units in Ibanda District.

Data will be analyzed and correlated using Pearson Product-Moment correlation coefficient to establish the relationship between technical capacity, technological capacity, quality of M&E systems and the utilization of M&E data as suggested by Sekaran (2003), Amin (2005) and Oso and Onen (2008).

For this study, the three dimensions of technical capacity, technological capacity and quality of M&E will be regressed utilization of M&E data within the health facilities. This will be aimed at determining the effect of each of these factors on the utilization of M&E data.

3.10.2 Analysis of qualitative data

Qualitative data will be analyzed using content analysis. Responses from key informants will be grouped into recurrent issues. The recurrent issues which will emerge in relation to each guiding questions will be presented in the results, with selected direct quotations from participants offered as illustrations.

3.11 Measurement of variables

Data on the respondent’s views and opinions about the factors affecting the utilization of M&E data will be obtained using scaled variables from a self-developed questionnaire.

A five point Likert ordinal scales ranging from; strongly agree which shall be assigned 5, strongly Agree, 4 agree, Not Sure assigned 3, Disagree allocated 2 and strongly disagree allotted 1 to obtain responses on the variables. The Likert ordinal scale has been used by numerous scholars who have conducted similar studies such as Bowling, (1997).

The structured questions will be measured using the following variables;

Technical Skills Capacity; Adequate personnel, experienced personnel, Qualified Personnel.

Financial Capacity; Availability of funds, Timely funds, adequate funds, Accountability.

Quality of M&E findings; Timeliness, Relevant, Well written, methodologically correct

Utilization of M&E findings; Number of Decisions made, Learning, Project/program improvement.

REFERENCES

Acevedo, G. L., Krause, P., & Mackay, K. (Eds.). (2012). Building better policies: the nuts and bolts of monitoring and evaluation systems, Washington DC, World Bank.

Amin, M. E. (2005). Social science research: Conception methodology and analysis. Kampala: Makerere University Printery.

Amkeni Wakenya. (2009). Strengthening the capacity of Kenyan civil society to participate more effectively in democratic governance reforms and in deepening democracy in Kenya. Amkeni Wakenya Annual progress report

Clear. (2012). Collaborative reflection and learning amongst peers. African monitoring and Evaluation systems workshop report. Available at: http://www.theclearinitiative.org/african_M&E_workshop.pdf

Davis, F. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance in Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.

Davis, N., Preston, C., & Sahin, I. (2009). ICT teacher training: Evidence for multilevel evaluation from a national initiative. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(1), 135–148

Gamba, P (2016). Factors Affecting Utilization of Monitoring and Evaluation Findings in Implementation Of Malaria Control Programmes In Mukono District, Uganda. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Uganda Technology and Management University.

Gebremedhin, B., Getachew, A. & Amha, R. (2010). Results based monitoring and evaluation for Organizations working in agricultural development: A guide for practitioners.

Gorgens, M.,& Kusek, J.Z. (2010). Making Monitoring and Evaluation Systems Work: A Capacity Development Toolkit. Washington D.C, World Bank

IFAD, (2002). A guide for project M & E, “Managing for impact in Rural Development” Rome, Italy. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya

Kasule, J.S. (2016). Factors Affecting Application Of Results Based Monitoring And Evaluation System By Nurture Africa. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Uganda Technology and Management University.

Kothari, C.R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and techniques. Daryaganj, New Delhi: New Age International (P) Ltd.

Krejcie,R. and Morgan,D. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research activities. Education and psychological Measurement. 30, 607-610.

Kusek, J. Z., & Rist C. R. (2004). Ten steps to a Results-based Monitoring and Evaluation System. Washington DC, World Bank.

Mackay, K. (2006). Institutionalization of monitoring and evaluation systems to improve public Sector management. Evaluation Capacity Development working paper series no.15. Independent Evaluation Group