data collection phases have to be clearly defined. First of all, open-ended questionnaires present a problem inasmuch that in many occasions, they tend to be geared toward the validation of already exhaustively corroborated known facts, or they are so general in nature that interpretation can be skewed in any particular direction. The absence of a sample of the open-ended questioning makes a determination of the construct and validity difficult to ascertain. If the open-ended questioning merely related to a consideration of the present programs and possible changes in these programs, and the 13 school staff members were merrily commenting, it is relatively easy to predict the outcomes considering the very nature of an inclusion program at the secondary level.
Each participant was interviewed one to four times. Nowhere is it mentioned how many, or who--for that matter--were interviewed one, two, three, or four times. Nor is it mentioned whether or not these interviews were tape-recorded for future analysis. The study merely mentions that participant remarks were analyzed and compared with field notes from the observations to identify issues of importance and then categorized into relevant themes. A topic was considered important if a participant repeated the same information more than once, or if two different participants discussed the same. The basis for this determination is nowhere explained, nor is its relevance. In addition, the author doesn't mention the nature or the frequency of the repeated topic.
Observed behavior was considered important if it was observed in at least three participants or if it was repeated at least three times by one individual. Again, no explanation for the basis of this determination, its relevance, or the frequency of the repeated topics by participants, individually or as a group.
The study mentions in its methodology section that participant remarks were analyzed and compared wit...