TPC-Journal-V5-Issue3

The Professional Counselor /Volume 5, Issue 3 393 participants identified their schools as urban and three as suburban. At the time of participation, three participants worked at the elementary level, two at the middle school level and three at the high school level. A Graham Fund Grant was received to give participants a $25 gift card for their participation in this study. Procedures After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval, the researcher secured informed consent and conducted two audiotaped interviews with each participant, allowing 3–4 weeks between interviews. First interviews ranged from 45–60 minutes in length and second interviews ranged from 30–45 minutes in length. The second interview gave participants the opportunity to share any further insights once they had had time to reflect upon the phenomena of sibling abuse and allowed for prolonged engagement, which built trust with participants and created an opportunity to check for misinformation (Creswell, 2007). When possible, it is recommended that in-person interviews be conducted in order to gain as much information as possible, both verbally and nonverbally (Creswell, 2007; Given, 2008). Based on their availability and comfort level, six of the first interviewees chose in-person interviews, one participant opted for a Skype interview and one was interviewed by telephone. In the second interviews, seven of the eight participants interviewed in person and one participant opted for a second telephone interview. Story vignettes were created to be utilized alongside the first semistructured individual interview. Because sibling abuse is a relatively unknown topic, vignettes allowed participants to respond to hypothetical questions about sibling abuse. Hypothetical questions allowed participants to discuss what they might do in a particular situation (Merriam, 1998) and ensured that all participants would be able to share their attitudes and beliefs whether or not they had encountered a student experiencing sibling abuse. The researcher utilized Heverly, Fitt, and Newman’s (1984) empirical model to create two story vignettes that varied on three factors: gender, age of the student, and the type of abuse being presented (physical and emotional or relational). “Vignettes are partial descriptions of life situations used in research and education as a strategy to elicit participants’ attitudes, judgments, beliefs, knowledge, opinions or decisions” (Brauer et al., 2009, p. 1938). (Interview questions and story vignettes are available from the author.) Data Analysis and Trustworthiness All data were collected by one researcher and transcribed by a third party. Data were analyzed and independently coded at two levels by the researcher. In the first level of coding, shorthand was assigned to data to identify important information about the data, and in the second level, interpretive constructs were identified (Merriam, 1998). Throughout both levels of coding, the specific techniques for analyzing phenomenological data of horizontalizing, clustering horizons, and textural and structural description were utilized (Moustakas, 1994). Several techniques were used to ensure the trustworthiness and rigor of data collection and analysis. First, the researcher conducted two member checks. According to Guba and Lincoln (1989), a member check is the most important technique that researchers can use to establish credibility. Participants received transcripts from their individual interviews and initial emerging and final themes. Participants were allowed to remove or further discuss any data from their transcript or the initial and final themes that did not fit their perspective and experience of the phenomenon. Next, the researcher utilized peer reviewers. Two peer reviewers provided feedback at three points throughout the data collection and analysis—after the first two individual interviews, at