Data Collection for Process Evaluation of Informed Health Choices Secondary School Intervention, Rwanda
| Method and Timing | Source and Sampling | Data Collection Process and Tools |
|---|---|---|
| Workshop evaluation to assess teachers’ perceptions of training they received (immediately after teacher training workshop) | All teachers from intervention arm who attended the training (N=42) | Teachers completed an online questionnaire with 5-point Likert response options that assessed the quality of training, extent to which training goals were achieved, and their readiness to deliver the intervention as intended. |
| Lesson evaluations to assess the delivery of each lesson (immediately after each lesson) | All teachers in intervention arm (N=42) for each of the 10 lessons. | Teachers completed an online lesson evaluation form describing how they prepared for and taught the lesson and the extent to which the lesson objectives were achieved. |
| Non-participatory observation of lessons to observe how the lessons were taught (during intervention delivery) | Intervention-arm schools (N=16) that were purposively sampled to ensure variation in ownership (private, public, or government-aided) and performance (high or low), as defined by the National Examination and School Inspection Authority. We observed all 10 lessons at least once. | We sat in classes during lesson delivery and used a structured observation form to note how the lesson was taught. We recorded how the teacher delivered the lesson and how students responded. |
| KIIs to explore how participants experienced the intervention (after intervention delivery) |
Purposively sampled teachers (N=10) from schools that varied by type (day or boarding), ownership (private, public, or government-aided) and performance (high or low). In each school, head teachers or director of studies (N=10). Policymakers from the Rwanda Basic Education Board with experience developing and implementing the intervention (N=2). | We used semistructured interview guides to conduct the interviews. We interviewed participants at their workplace in a convenient location that also ensured privacy and quality recording of discussions. Each interview lasted for 1–1.5 hours. Two researchers conducted each interview. One person led the discussion, and another took notes and audio-recorded the discussion. We transcribed verbatim all the recordings and translated to English if the interview was conducted in Kinyarwanda. |
| FGDs to explore how students and their parents or caregivers experienced the intervention (after intervention delivery) |
Purposively sampled schools as described above for KIIs. In each of the 10 schools, we conducted 1 focus group for students (N=10 FGDs). Students varied in terms of age, sex, and performance. Each FGD included 8–10 students. For parents, we focused on 5 of the 10 selected schools that were day schools. In those schools, we used purposive sampling to select parents who were invited to the FGDs. We invited parents who had discussed the intervention with their children. Each FGD included 8–10 parents. | We used semistructured FGD guides to conduct discussions with students and their parents, respectively. We conducted the discussions at the students’ school, in a room where no teachers or school leaders were present. For all FGDs, 1 researcher moderated, and another took notes and audio-recorded the discussion. The duration of each FGD was 1–1.5 hours. We transcribed verbatim all recordings and translated to English. |
Abbreviations: FGD, focus group discussion, KII, key informant interview.