Boston Fights Drugs

BOSTON FIGHTS DRUGS

Evaluating the screening procedure used in A case, the screening procedure that the group used had a number of flaws which may have affected the efficieny of the screening process. In general, the survey is able to deliver the expected results however in a limited fashion. As stated in the case, many volunteers were not able to interpret the questions without assistance. This is mainly caused by the ambiguity of the questions. For instance in the second question the respondents are asked to state whether they see drug use as a problem. Here, the statement "problem" is too general, it should have been explained at least briefly so that the reprensentatives could have interpreted the questions without assistance and its side effects of being possibly influenced by that assistance.

Another problem with the questionnaire was that it was possibly not able to grab the attention of the respondents. This has two possible reasons. Firstly the introductory paragraph could have better wording. Stating the payment respondents are going to receive is an advantage, but stating the aim of the questionnaire may be a possible turn off. Second and perhaps more importantly there is a problem with the order of the questions. General demographic information gathering questions should have been placed at the beginning of the questionnaire, so that they would grab the attention of the respondents as well as fitting the questionnaire in a more structural way. The flaw in this area caused almost one third of the reprensentatives to be eliminated because they did not frankly answer the questionnaire and chose to copy from another person.

In some of the questions, respondents choose their level or position in a certain subject. However the scaling in these questions is inadequate and would not able the group to gather functional quantitative data. Scaling based on a numeric base could be a better alternative. For instance, respondents could have chosen from a scale from 1 to 5 in order to choose their level of disturbance caused by street violance, 1 being "not disturbed at all" while 5 means being "very disturbed".

Considering the focus group's procedure used in A Case to measure the attitudes toward drugs and factors that contribute to drug use, we have done the following observations: The questions in the protocol were created for the focus group moderator to get useful and to the point answers from the groups that are interviewed. So it is targeted to have to the point answers in an effective and meaningful time period. However when we analyze the interviewing protocol we observe that there are many questions to be asked and it is very long. Therefore it isn't easy for the moderator to get all the answers in a specified period of time. Moreover because of the high number of questions it is possible that all questions can't be asked and proper answers can't be gained.

According to the case they faced such a situation that after some interviews with some focus groups there were unanswered questions therefore the group modified the protocol to get the answers to the unanswered questions from the last group. According to the case the new version was shorter and more pointed. So from that point of view a few questions pop into mind: first it is important to ask why the group didn't prepare the shorter and more pointed version of the protocol earlier and use it after then with the other groups. Second, it is stated that the last discussion performed with the last focus group encompassed the questions that were unanswered so we can reveal from this information that they asked fewer questions to the last group and they didn't get answers to some of the questions they prepared. Therefore we think it is possible not to get enough effeciency from the research as one group member commented that the data they achieved seemed to add very little to existing knowledge. On the other hand the content and sequence of the questions are good.

Additionally, it is a good method to divide the research issue into some topics and ask the questions accordingly. The first topic "attitudes toward the future" includes questions relating the thoughts of focus groups about the future. The sequence of the questions lead the discussion from the general view to specific. We can make the same interpretation for the "impressions of advertising" topic. The sequence of the questions is from general to specific. The last questions of this topic is to the point questions. Questions in other topics (drug awareness, motivations for drug use, influences actions/options) are much more specific and straight to the point questions. These questions directly ask details about drug use. However we think that is better for the group to decrease the number of the questions because it is possible that either all questions can't be answered or the group can be lost in many details in the case of all questions being answered.

There are several pitfalls when the design of the study is concerned. First of all the focus group choice is a question mark whether it represents the population or not. Charlestown and Roxbury are two districts where population is almost white or African American. People tend to compare themselves to others who are similar in their daily lives. They are often perceived by knowing how people like themselves conduct their lives and they behave by observing the actions of those around them. So, the segmentation choice of the focus group is essential. The social differences of two different segments may negatively affect the focus group and the information gathered may be corrupted. The majority of the focus group should be from the districts namely, South End, Jamaica Plain and Dorchester where the population is heterogeneous.

Secondly, the age group ads targeted are youth who have a number of needs, including experimentation, belonging, independence, responsibility and approval from others. Because most of the youth were raised on television, they tend to be more understanding than the older generations. They make their decisions fast and quick so they decide very quickly whether they like it or do not. Modern teens are aware that most of the ads are based on lies. So if the questionnaire is decided to be short and simple, it should attract the attention of the youth effectively in a way that they are surprised, not in a way that they can criticize easily.

The attitudes planned to be measured are relevant with the study where the questions do not match with. The design of the questionnaire is prepared to evaluate the ads on four aspects; realism, effectiveness of the antidrug message, likability and overall impression. The questions chosen to evaluate these criteria and the attitudes are not relevant enough to set