1. Introduction
2. Minutes and update on actions
3. Pretesting overview and variable list update
4. Questionnaire for pilot
5. Next steps
6. AOB
Attendees:
• Keith McSweeney (Chair), Helen McGrath (Secretary), Jessica Coyne, Central Statistics Office
• Eithne Tiernan, Consultant
• Shirley Scott, Dublin Rape Crisis Centre
• Clíona Saidléar, Rape Crisis Network Ireland
• Naomi Gould, One in Four
• Mary Roche, TUSLA, the Child and Family Agency
• Jennifer McCarthy Flynn, National Women’s Council of Ireland
• Philip McCormack, Department of Justice and Equality
• Susan Leahy, University of Limerick
Minutes
1. Introduction
The Chair welcomed all participants to the Dublin office. He explained the focus of this Liaison Group meeting was sharing information on the testing conducted, changes to the variable list and an overview of the questionnaire for the pilot.
Elaine Byrnes and Sarah O'Connor sent apologies in advance.
2. Minutes and update on actions
The Secretary gave an overview of the minutes from the previous meeting and gave an update on the actions from the last meeting. There were no issues raised with the minutes. These will be published online.
3. Pretesting overview and variable list update
The Secretary presented on overview of the work conducted in testing the variables as presented to the group in November 2019. An overview of the changes to the variable list were identified. Several points were addressed in the presentation including:
• The aim of the survey, to capture the prevalence of sexual violence in Ireland, was re-iterated.
• The establishment of an ethics committee for social surveys was highlighted to the group. The first survey the committee will look at will be the Sexual Violence Survey (SVS). An overview of the core ethical principles was shared.
• The drafting of questions for the testing phase used several sources of information for the initial question. The plan for testing these questions – cognitive testing and through focus groups – was described.
• Cognitive testing approach - A plan was drawn up that looked at sensitive and non-sensitive questions with different cohorts of volunteers. The plan was developed looking at best practise internationally.
o The Sexual Violence Centre, Cork was acknowledged as being very helpful in getting volunteers and providing space in their office to conduct the sensitive cognitive test interviews.
• Focus group approach- It was felt that this was the safest mechanism to get feedback from those who have experienced sexual violence previously. A plan was drawn up that looked at different topics that required further exploration. It was designed in line with the cognitive test approach, using best practise.
o The Sexual Violence Centre, Cork was acknowledged again as being very helpful in getting volunteers and providing space in their office to conduct the initial focus group.
o The Dublin Rape Crisis Centre was acknowledged as also being helpful in getting volunteers from the users of their services, providing space in their office to conduct the focus group, and ensuring that support was available in case any participants needed help during the focus group.
• Some of the main observations from this process were shared with the group. These were reflected in the changes to the variables, which was also shared.
• It was also noted that only questions that have been through the pilot can be considered possible candidates for inclusion in the SVS main survey.
There followed some general discussion:
• It was clarified that the membership of the ethics committee has yet to be finalised, but it would include previous CSO staff and external members. Any relevant developments will be shared with both the Liaison Group and the Steering Group.
• It was outlined that any changes in wording of the variables was due to observations made during the test period.
• Feedback was received on whether a question on the location of sexual harassment could be added. It was felt that with the current publicity campaigns and specific interventions in third level institutions that the location of where sexual harassment occurred could give valuable information. CSO agreed to consider this proposal.
• There was a query raised about the absence of a variable on the reason for disclosing for the adult experience. This was not identified in the scoping group report nor through the data list refinement process. This appears to be a gap and the CSO agreed to consider this proposal.
• Other queries were raised about:
o age cut offs used in the questionnaire – based on the age of consent
o titles for questions in the questionnaire will not be shown to the respondent
o the inclusion of social work service for adult experiences – adults may have had experience in a historical abuse case.
o the attitudes section rationale was explained and it was confirmed that they will only be asked of those who do not disclose any experience of sexual violence/harassment and will be asked towards the end of the questionnaire.
• It was noted that all the questions will also be re-evaluated after the pilot.
4. Questionnaire for pilot
The Secretary presented on overview of the questionnaire for the pilot which was shared with the group in advance of the meeting. Several points were addressed in the presentation including:
• The survey design was described - a household survey with one person randomly selected to complete the survey. It will be delivered as a face to face interview with a large self-completion element to the survey.
• General challenges in questionnaire design were shared as well as specific challenges when designing questions for sensitive topics.
• Each stage of the interview process was explained i.e. the doorstep interaction, sample selection, demographic section, self-completion section and the end modules.
• An example of the results from the main survey were also introduced. It was flagged that these would not be available from the pilot.
There followed some general discussion:
• Clarification was given that the data from the pilot will not be included as part of the data in the main study.
• A discussion was held on the demographic variables which could be used in publishing e.g. disability, sexual orientation. The CSO reminded the group of the publishing rules which will be followed .
• Protocols for field operations relating to the approach where respondent do not or cannot use the self-completion module have to be developed.
• The current procedure around dealing with situations where the randomly selected respondent is not present was shared. It was confirmed that the only person in the household who will be told the topic of the survey will be the selected person. A note of caution was shared that response rates, generally, are falling.
Feedback on the questionnaire is welcome but due to the tight timelines it must be submitted as soon as possible for it to be examined and if accepted, incorporated into the questionnaire and then into the instrument
5. Next steps
An overview of the work required to build for the pilot was described including the recruitment of staff to conduct the survey, the additional field protocols that will be necessary, creating training modules based on the field protocols, and building the instrument (the questionnaire in electronic software). The objectives of the pilot were shared. An outline of the meeting structure for this 2020 was provided.
There followed some general discussion:
• A question was raised on how surveys in the CSO are advertised. Generally, there is no advertising campaign for specific household surveys. Feedback from the focus group was shared which indicated that a publicity campaign could be important in reassuring people that this is a legitimate survey. As this is a small pilot there is no advertising campaign planned for the pilot. However, this remains an open question for the main survey.
• Clarification was sought on how to support the respondent after the survey. A leaflet can be designed identifying support services however it will require input from the wider stakeholder group.
6. AOB
There was no issue raised under AOB.
Actions for next meeting
Action Organisation responsible
Return feedback on the questionnaire as soon as possible Liaison Group members
Share the presentation from the meeting with members CSO
Issue minutes for comment as soon as possible CSO
Arrange the next Liaison Group meeting for June/July CSO