2026-09-18T22:59:47Z https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh

oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/19865 2023-07-10 col_2142_5131 col_2142_8800 com_2142_5130 com_2142_5132

Wentling, Tim Bragg, Dawn St. Antoinette 2011-05-07T12:21:09Z 2011-05-07T12:21:09Z 10000-01-01 1993 Needs identification is essential to the development of service, training and educational programs. Several methods are used for needs identification. Traditionally, individual methods have been found to yield better data than group methods. However, the assumptions that the focus group interview promotes self-disclosure and provides more information and insight than the face-to-face interview through a non-threatening environment, make it a possible alternative method for needs identification. The objective of this study was to compare a group method, the focus group interview, and an individual method, the telephone interview, for needs identification. The study examined and compared the number of needs identified by the focus group and telephone interviews; the specificity of information provided by both methods; participants perceptions of both methods and; the relationship between participant characteristics and their perceptions of the methods. Three focus groups (21 participants) and 21 telephone interviews were conducted. Information from both methods were rated for three components of specificity--context, history and level. Perception questionnaires were completed by each participant. The study found the following: (1) The focus group interview identified significantly more needs than the telephone interview. (2) The focus group interview provided significantly more contextual information than the telephone interview. (3) There was no significant difference between the historical information provided by the focus group and telephone interviews. (4) There was no significant difference between the level of information provided by the focus group and telephone interviews. (5) There was no significant difference between perceived participant comfort with the focus group and telephone interviews. (6) There was no significant difference between perceived participant satisfaction with the focus group and telephone interviews. (7) There was no significant difference between perceived effectiveness of the focus group and telephone interviews. (8) There was no significant difference between participant desire for future participation in the focus group and telephone interviews. (9) There was no relationship between participant characteristics and participant perception. This detailed and careful analysis has shown that the focus group interview performs as well as and in some aspects better than the telephone interviews for needs identification. In addition, the focus group interview promoted comprehension of the specific problems thus providing insight into participants' needs. Made available in DSpace on 2011-05-07T12:21:09Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4922 bytes, checksum: 910b249b4beec47e7ab768910c8f966f (MD5) 9328978.pdf: 3699488 bytes, checksum: e16de20dbb59fd1d8d6eb85809017c69 (MD5) Previous issue date: 1993 Item marked as restricted to the 'UIUC Users [automated]' Group (id=2) by Howard Ding (hding2@illinois.edu) on 2011-05-07T14:39:57Z Item is restricted indefinitely. Restriction data tranferred 2014-07-01T11:16:58-05:00 Original Data Group with Access UIUC Users [automated] Release Date: none Reason: ETDs are only available to UIUC Users without author permission ETDs are only available to UIUC Users without author permission U of I Only AAI9328978 (UMI)AAI9328978 http://hdl.handle.net/2142/19865 eng Copyright 1993 Bragg, Dawn St. Antoinette Sociology, Theory and Methods Education, Adult and Continuing The comparative effect of focus group and telephone interviews on the amount and specificity of the information gained for needs identification text Education Education University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Dissertation Ph.D.