Short Communication - (2022) Volume 10, Issue 3
Received: 21-Jul-2022, Manuscript No. AERR-22-69884; Editor assigned: 25-Jul-2022, Pre QC No. AERR-22-69884 (PQ); Reviewed: 08-Aug-2022, QC No. AERR-22-69884; Revised: 15-Aug-2022, Manuscript No. AERR-22-69884 (R); Published: 25-Aug-2022, DOI: 10.51268/ 2736-1888.22.10.066
The purpose of this study is to critically explore the methodology for item generation used in the development of the KIDSCREEN-52 quality of life questionnaire. The reason for conducting this study is the long-standing need for methodological insights both in cross-cultural health-related survey research and educational research of immigrant children. Our research questions were: (1) What methodological principles do emerge in evidence-based educational research of immigrant children? and (2) In which ways are these methodological principles present in the methodology of Kidscreen-52?
KIDSCREEN-52, Quality of life research, Educational research, Immigrant children, Transdisciplinary methodologization.
The purpose of this study is to critically explore the methodology for item generation used in the development of the KIDSCREEN-52 quality of life questionnaire (Barkmann et al., 2021; Bollweg et al., 2020; Bullinger et al., 2006; Ravens-Sieberer et al., 2008; Ravens- Sieberer et al., 2014; Robitail et al., 2006; Nassar-McMillan et al., 2002). The reason for conducting this study is the long-standing need for methodological insights both in crosscultural health-related survey research and educational research on immigrant children (Perneger et al., 1999; Dickson-Swift et al., 2008; Shivayogi, 2013; Punch, 2012; Liamputtong, 2007; Liamputtong, 2008). Our research question s were: (1) what methodological principles do emerge in evidence-based educational research of immigrant children? and (2) In which ways are these methodological principles present in the methodology of Kidscreen-52? The final interconnection analysis revealed three overarching elements: (1) Kidscreen focus groups enabled peer interactions by involving relational authenticity, a concept found in educational research, and (2) due to their inherent group dynamics the Kidscreen focus groups increased verbal and nonverbal expressions, and (3) by covering a greater range of experiences the Kidscreen focus groups have enhanced reflexivity that is instrumental for capturing cross-cultural experiences of vulnerable children populations (Patton, 2004; Noddings, 2015; Sha et al., 2020; Punch, 2012).
Due to the cross-disciplinary uniqueness of our study, we have adopted the intrinsic case study design. To answer the first research question, we conducted a rapid review of the evidence-based literature relevant to immigrant children. To answer the second research question, we have conducted an analytical methodological comparison of the item generation in Kidscreen-52 based on (McPhee et al., 2018).
The rapid review adhered to the following procedure: (1) we used google scholar search, (2) keywords used: “kid-screen”, “migrant”, “immigrant”, and "vulnerable". Inclusion criteria: (a) studies had to report empirical data, b) studies had to be related or reference to immigrant children in school context, © studies had to discuss methodological approaches and (d) data corresponded to our definition of immigrant children (allencompassing terms including any type of migration experience of children and adolescents aged 7 to 18) (Mbuagbaw et al., 2020; Herdman et al., 2002; Arksey et al., 2005). Four most important databases (Web of Science, PubMed, Psyc INFO, and ERIC) in the fields of education, psychology and social sciences research were searched (citations were excluded). The search included only articles written in English and published between 2015 and 2022. The decision to focus on this period was based on increasing interest in refugee education caused by the Syrian refugee influx in 2015 (Gifford et al., 2007; Ostrand, 2015).
Our research questions were: (1) What methodological principles do emerge in evidence-based educational research on immigrant children? and (2) In which ways are these methodological principles present in the methodology of Kidscreen-52?
First research question
The rapid review identified 48 outputs, detailing the nature and extent of methodology to conduct research with immigrant children. We identified 7 referenced studies that met our inclusion criteria. They highlighted the following three methodological principles:
1. Providing relational authenticity (Noddings, 2013; Noddings, 2015; Perneger et al., 1999).
2. Ensuring higher level of reflexivity (Sharkey et al., 2021; Liamputtong, 2007; Liamputtong, 2008).
3. Enhancing verbal and non-verbal expression (Punch, 2012).
Second research question
The previously identified methodological principles occurred mainly in the Kindscreen- 52 focus groups that were used to generate survey items (Harkness, 2007; Bullinger et al, 2006).
1. By enabling peer interactions the Kidscreen-52 focus groups have provided relational authenticity.
2. By covering a greater range of experiences the Kidscreen-52 focus groups have enhanced reflexivity that is instrumental for capturing cross-cultural experiences of vulnerable children populations (Punch, 2012).
3. By providing group dynamics the Kidscreen-52 focus groups have served as a catalyst for verbal and non-verbal expression (Morgan, 1996).
Researchers often are in need of adapting survey items age-appropriately. Focus groups utilized for item generation of Kidscreen-52 demonstrated the potential to encourage age-appropriate conversations. According to Detmar focus group have the ability to increase the amount of verbal and non-verbal expressions. This is particularly instrumental for immigrant children experiencing silent periods or selective mutism.
Arksey H, O'Malley L (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 8(1):pp:19-32. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
Barkmann C, Otto C, Meyrose AK, Reiss F, Wuestner A, Voss C, Erhart M, Ravens-Sieberer U (2021). Psychometrics and Norms of the Quality of Life Inventory KIDSCREEN in Germany. DIAGNOSTICA. 67(1):2-12. [Google Scholar]
Bollweg TM, Okan O, Pinheiro P, Broder J, Bruland D, Freţian AM, Domanska OM, Jordan S, Bauer U (2020). Adapting the European health literacy survey for fourth-grade students in Germany: Questionnaire development and qualitative pretest. Health. Lit. Res. Pract. 4(2):e119-e128. [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [Pub Med]
Bullinger M, Alonso J, Apolone G, Leplege A, Sullivan M, Wood-Dauphinee S, Gandek B, Wagner A, Detmar SB, Bruil J, Ravens-Sieberer U, Gosch A, Bisegger C (2006). The use of focus groups in the development of the KIDSCREEN HRQL questionnaire. Qual. Life Res. 15(8):1345-1353. [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [Pub Med]
Dickson-Swift V, James E, Liamputtong P (2008). Undertaking sensitive research in the health and social sciences: Managing boundaries, emotions and risks. Cambridge University Press. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
Gifford SM, Bakopanos C, Kaplan I, Correa-Velez I (2007). Meaning or measurement? Researching the social contexts of health and settlement among newly-arrived refugee youth in Melbourne, Australia. J. Refug. Stud. 20(3):414-440. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
Herdman M, Rajmil L, Ravens‐Sieberer U, Bullinger M, Power M, Alonso J, European Kidscreen and Disabkids groups (2002). Expert consensus in the development of a European health‐related quality of life measure for children and adolescents: A Delphi study. Acta. Paediatr. 91(12):1385-1390. [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [Pub Med]
Liamputtong P (2007). Researching the vulnerable: A guide to sensitive research methods. [Google Scholar]
Liamputtong P (2008). Doing research in a cross-cultural context: Methodological and ethical challenges. Doing Cross-Cultural Research. pp.3-20. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
Mbuagbaw L, Lawson DO, Puljak L, Allison DB, Thabane L (2020). A tutorial on methodological studies: The what, when, how and why. BMC. Med. Res. Methodol. 20(1):1-2. [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [Pub Med]
Noddings N (2013). Caring: A relational approach to ethics and moral education. Univ of California Press. [Google Scholar]
Ostrand N (2015). The Syrian refugee crisis: A comparison of responses by Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Journal on Migration and Human Security. 3(3):255-279. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
Patton MQ (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. [Google Scholar]
Perneger TV, Leplege A, Etter JF (1999). Cross-cultural adaptation of a psychometric instrument: Two methods compared. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 52(11):1037-1046. [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [Pub Med]
Punch S (2012). Studying transnational children: A multi-sited, longitudinal, ethnographic approach. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. 38(6):1007-1023. [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
Ravens-Sieberer U, Gosch A, Rajmil L, Erhart M, Bruil J, Power M, Duer W, Auquier P, Cloetta B, Czemy L, Mazur J (2008). The KIDSCREEN-52 quality of life measure for children and adolescents: Psychometric results from a cross-cultural survey in 13 European countries. Value. Health. 11(4):645-658. [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [Pub Med]
Ravens-Sieberer U, Herdman M, Devine J, Otto C, Bullinger M, Rose M, Klasen F (2014). The European KIDSCREEN approach to measure quality of life and well-being in children: Development, current application, and future advances. Qual. Life. Res. 23(3):791-803. [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [Pub Med]
Robitail S, Simeoni MC, Erhart M, Ravens-Sieberer U, Bruil J, Auquier P, Group EK (2006). Validation of the European proxy KIDSCREEN-52 pilot test health-related quality of life questionnaire: First results. J. Adolesc. Health. 39(4):pp.596-e1-596-e10. [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [Pub Med]
Sha M, Park H, Pan Y, Kim J (2020). Cross-Cultural Comparison of Focus Groups as a Research Method. The Essential Role of Language in Survey Research. 8:151. [Google Scholar]
Sharkey J, Peercy MM, Solano-Campos A, Schall-Leckrone L (2021). Being a reflexive practitioner and scholar in TESOL: Methodological considerations. Becoming and Being a TESOL Teacher Educator. pp. 127-146. [Google Scholar]
Shivayogi P (2013). Vulnerable population and methods for their safeguard. Perspect. Clin. Res. 4(1):53-7. [Crossref] [Google Scholar] [Pub Med]