38 CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY This research was an analytical research, which was a cross-sectional study with an objective to study the relationship between leadership and teamwork of the Chiefs of Health Centers in Chonburi province. Research methodologies were as follows. Population Study population were 120 public health officers who were working as the Chief of Health Centers in Chonburi province, consisting of 17 persons from Muang District, 21 persons from Phanat Nikhom District, 10 persons from Phan Thong District, 14 persons from Ban Bueng District, 9 persons from Nong Yai District, 13 persons from Bor Thong District, 14 persons from Bang Lamung District, 6 persons from Sattahip District, 12 persons from Si Racha District, and 4 persons from Ko Chan District without any sampling. The Tools Used in This Research The tools used in this research comprise of questionnaires, which were divided into three main parts as follows. Part 1: General information of the Chiefs of Health Centers 9 questions Part 2: Leadership of the Chiefs of Health Centers in which researcher used the questionnaire constructed by Kirati Rungchaeng (2000) by applying the concept of Bass (1985) to evaluate leadership of the Chiefs of Health Centers. The questionnaire contained open-ended questions, with reliability value of 0.97. The questionnaire relating to leadership of the Chiefs of Health Centers consists of 4 parts and 39 questions as follows. Part 1: Charismatic influence 10 questions Part 2: Individualized consideration 10 questions Part 3: Intellectual stimulation 10 questions Part 4: Inspirational motivation 9 questions 39 Evaluation of the questionnaire was divided into five-rating scales with scoring criteria as follows. 5 means the Chiefs of Health Centers undertake duties always = 5 points 4 means the Chiefs of Health Centers undertake duties frequently = 4 points 3 means the Chiefs of Health Centers undertake duties sometimes = 3 points 2 means the Chiefs of Health Centers undertake duties rarely = 2 points 1 means the Chiefs of Health Centers never undertake duties = 1 points Interpretation of the data was done by calculating the mean score by having interpretation criteria as follows (Prakong Kannasoot, 1995: 117). Mean score = 4.50 – 5.00 means leadership of the Chiefs of Health Centers was at a very high level Mean score = 3.50 – 4.49 means leadership of the Chiefs of Health Centers was at a high level Mean score = 2.50 – 3.49 means leadership of the Chiefs of Health Centers was at a moderate level Mean score = 1.50 – 2.49 means leadership of the Chiefs of Health Centers was at a low level Mean score = 1.00 – 1.49 means leadership of the Chiefs of Health Centers was at a very low level Part 3: Teamwork of the Chiefs of Health Centers in which researcher uses the questionnaire constructed by Atchara Suepsangad (1997) based on the concept of Woodcock (1989) to evaluate teamwork of the Chiefs of Health Centers. The questionnaire contained open-ended questions, with reliability value of 0.96. The questionnaire relating to teamwork of the Chiefs of Health Centers consists of 10 parts and 67 questions as follows. Part 1: Balance in roles 7 questions Part 2: Clear purposes 5 questions Part 3: Openness and confrontation 7 questions 40 Part 4: Support and sincerity 10 questions Part 5: Cooperation and conflict 5 questions Part 6: Flexible methods of conduct 10 questions Part 7: Regular teamwork revision 6 questions Part 8: Personnel development 6 questions Part 9: Relationship between groups 5 questions Part 10: Effective communication 6 questions Evaluation of the questionnaire was divided into five-rating scales with scoring criteria as follows. 5 means the statement was consistent to your practice and/or opinion at the highest level = 5 points 4 means the statement was consistent to your practice and/or opinion at a high level = 4 points 3 means the statement was consistent to your practice and/or opinion at a moderate level = 3 points 2 means the statement was consistent to your practice and/or opinion at a low level = 2 points 1 means the statement was consistent to your practice and/or opinion at the lowest level or inconsistent to your practice and/or opinion = 1 point Interpretation of the data was done by calculating the mean score by having interpretation criteria as follows (Prakong Kannasoot, 1995: 117). Mean score = 4.50 – 5.00 means teamwork was at a very high level Mean score = 3.50 – 4.49 means teamwork was at a high level Mean score = 2.50 – 3.49 means teamwork was at a moderate level Mean score = 1.50 – 2.49 means teamwork was at a low level Mean score = 1.00 – 1.49 means teamwork was at a very low level Reliability Assessment of Research Instrument Reliability assessment of research instrument was done by analyzing content validity of the questionnaires and calculating reliability value of the research tool. The process was as follows. 41 1. Content validity: The questionnaire relating to leadership of the Chiefs of Health Centers constructed by Kirati Rungchaeng (2000) and the questionnaire relating to teamwork constructed by Atchara Suepsangad (1997) were assessed for their content validity and improved in accordance with the suggestions of experts. Researcher did not conduct self-assessment of both questionnaires. 2. Reliability: Researcher tried out the questionnaire relating to leadership of the Chiefs of Health Centers constructed by Kirati Rungchaeng (2000), with reliability value of 0.97, and the questionnaire relating to teamwork constructed by Atchara Suepsangad (1997), with reliability value of 0.96, with 30 Chiefs of Health Centers who are working in Chachengsao province and have similar characteristics to the sampling group and find reliability value by using Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (Yuwadee Ruecha et al., 2000, p. 127) as follows. ⎡ s 2 ⎤ n ∑ i α = ⎢1 − 2 ⎥ n − 1 s ⎣⎢ t ⎦⎥ α = Reliability coefficient of questionnaire n = Number of data of questionnaires 2 si = Variance of score of each question 2 st = Variance of total score of all questionnaires It was found that overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the questionnaire related to leadership of the Chiefs of Health Centers was equivalent to .92 whereby charismatic influence is .70; individualized consideration is .69; intellectual stimulation was .87; and inspirational motivation was .83. The questionnaire related to teamwork of the Chiefs of Health Centers was equivalent to .96 where balance in roles equals to .81; clear purposes and conformity to goals was .74; openness and confrontation is .83; mutual support and sincerity was .83; cooperation and conflict was .78; flexible method of work conduct was .81; regular teamwork revision was .86; personnel development was .74; good relations within a group was .69; and effective communication was .73. Then, all questionnaires were examined by thesis 42 advisors in order to check for accuracy and appropriateness of language, congruence with research objectives, and content coverage. Suggestions obtained from the thesis advisors were used for further improvement of the questionnaires. The improved questionnaires were, then, examined by experts for accuracy and the obtained suggestions were used for additional improvement. Data Collection Data collection in this research contained the following steps. 1. Researcher proposed the research topic in order to obtain a letter from Faculty of Public Health to the doctor of Chonburi Public Health Office for permission request for data collection. 2. Sent a letter for permission request for data collection from Faculty of Public Health, Burapha University, to the doctor of Chonburi Public Health Office, along with the details of research objectives, study populations and one set of questionnaire. 3. Researcher made a contact and asked for cooperation from District Public Health Office from every district in order to explain the details of research objectives, number and qualifications of the sampling group, and the method of data collection as well as asked for cooperation from District Public Health Office to make an appointment with the target groups in order to answer to the questionnaires. 4. Researcher collected the data from the appointment made with the target groups of each district by creating common understanding with the target groups who gathered together at District Public Health Office. Then, researcher explained the details of research objectives, number and qualifications of the sampling group, the method of data collection, and made a confirmation for data confidentiality and that the data would be used only in this study. Then, researcher collected the data by asking the target groups to fill out information at the same time. If they had any doubts, the target groups could immediately ask researcher. Research spent time with each group about 30 minutes and the total duration for data collection was 3 weeks. 5. All questionnaires were examined for completeness and accuracy prior to data analysis. 43 Data Analysis and Data Presentation Researcher analyzed the data by using SPSS as follows. 1. Data analysis of general information of the Chiefs of Health Centers, including gender, age, marital status, education level, duration of position held, training of primary-level public health administration for administrators, number of responsible population, and number of personnel working at health centers, by using basic statistics, which are percentage, mean and standard deviation. 2. The study of leadership and teamwork of the Chiefs of Health Centers was analyzed by using basic statistics, including percentage, mean and standard deviation. 3. The study of the relationship between leadership and teamwork of the Chiefs of Health Centers in Chonburi province was analyzed by using analytical ststistics in analyzing Pearson product moment correlation coefficient, by interpreting coefficient alpha (r) as follows (Prakong Kannasoot, 1992). Value from 0.70 to 1.00 had correlation value in a high level Value from 0.30 to 0.69 had correlation value in a moderate level Value from 0.00 to 0.29 had correlation value in a low level .