Menu ENN Search
Language: English Français

SQUEAC Second Stage Hypothesis

This question was posted the Coverage assessment forum area and has 3 replies. You can also reply via email – be sure to leave the subject unchanged.

» Post a reply

Anonymous 2227

Humanitarian Worker

Normal user

28 Apr 2015, 11:41

Dears

I want to clarify myself on one question that, What If we failed to test hypothesis in 2nd stage of SQUEAC, (1) should we continue towards 3rd stage or (2) we should change our hypothesis and test again.?

If we will continue with 1st option go to 3rd stage than how we can justify that in SQUEAC report..?

Thanks for your guidance !

Anonymous 2707

Normal user

28 Apr 2015, 13:27

1.Hypothesis testing in stage two is to confirm the findings from stage one , and the findings from stage two will be used to know the access and coverage of the CMAM programme. However, there are times you do not progress into stage 3 of the SQUEAC methods, in such cases, you must have discovered that the coverage of the programme is extremely low (when barriers is higher )
2. when hypothesis that is being tested failed, there is a possibility of changing the hypothesis, when the resources is available and it is advisable to retest the hypothesis. but in a case whereby you were unable to redo the hypothesis , when writing the report, questions will be asked.

Mark Myatt

Consultant Epideomiologist

Frequent user

3 May 2015, 09:23

I am not sure what you are asking. I assume that you formulated a hypothesis from stage I data and tested it in stage II and it was not confirmed.

What this means depends on the hypothesis being tested and how it was tested.

I would start by reviewing the hypothesis and the evidence for that hypothesis. It may be that the evidence was not clear or that you were testing a hypothesis (e.g. distance and coverage) without thinking very hard. For example, you may test the hypothesis that distance is a major barrier to coverage with the hypothesis that coverage is high close to centres and low far from centres. Ignoring error, you will fail to confirm this hypothesis in three circumstances:

(1) Coverage is poor everywhere.

(2) Coverage is good everywhere.

(3) Coverage is poor close to centres and good far from centers.

You should be able to work out which is the true case from the data collected to test the hypothesis. If you came work out the circumstances then you can use this to inform your stage III prior.

You also need to review the way the hypothesis was tested. It may be (e.g.) that we mistake "distance" with "remoteness". When this happens we may (e.g.) look for covered and non-covered cases in communities close to centres and look for covered and non-covered cases in communities away from centres but along main roads. Those "communities away from centres but along main roads" are not remote (i.e. we have made an error). In this case a better hypothesis might refer to "remoteness" or "time to travel" and test the hypothesis by looking for covered and non-covered cases in communities within 30 minutes travel to centres and for covered and non-covered cases in communities more than 2 hours travel time from centres. If you find your hypothesis or testing procedure lacking then you may want to test a revised hypothesis in a better way.

It may be the case that that you review your stage I data and maybe confirm it with additional stage I type activities (beware of thinking of SQUEAC as a "linear" process ... you can go back to stage I methods as needed) and are still convinced or the truth of the hypothesis. In this case you may want to repeat the test with a large sample.

Do not worry if a hypothesis fails. Hypotheses can be wrong. That is why we test hypotheses. Treat this as a learning opportunity (as above). Treat this as a personal learning opportunity ... in my first SQUEACs I often went wrong by preferring evidence from clinical and program staff over that from other sources rather than taking more time to reconcile conflicting evidence. I am now more careful.

I hope this is of some use.

Anonymous 2227

Humanitarian Worker

Normal user

5 May 2015, 04:49

Dear Mark Mayat

It helped me. Thanks for kind guidance as always

Back to top

» Post a reply