Table 1

Process evaluation research domains and methods of evaluation

DomainResearch questions
process evaluation framework mapping
Informant/source of dataMethodsTiming of data collectionAnalysis
Implementation of intervention (the information pack) Intervention schools n=4Which CVI poject information pack components were delivered? Fidelity, dose, reachSENCO/head teacher n=4Brief survey questionPostinterventionData recorded and tabulated
Which resources were used?SENCO/head teacher n=4Brief survey questionsPostinterventionData recorded and tabulated
How were these resources used? FidelitySemistructured interviewThematic analysis
How was the training delivered? For example: training day, short sessions. Fidelity, adaptationSENCO/head teacher n=4Brief survey questionsPostinterventionData recorded and tabulated
Who received the training? ReachSENCO/head teacher n=4Brief survey questionsPostinterventionData recorded and tabulated
Were adaptations made to resources? How did this affect implementation? Adaptation, FidelitySENCO/head teacher n=4Semistructured interviewPostinterventionThematic analysis
What were the barriers and facilitators to delivering the training? MediatorsSENCO/head teacher n=4Semistructured interviewPostinterventionThematic analysis
Mechanisms of change of CVI project intervention Intervention schools n=4What was the response of staff to the training? Participant responses to and interactions with the CVI project interventionSENCOs/head teacher classroom teachers, LSA years 3–5 n=TBCSemistructured interviewPostinterventionThematic analysis
How did staff knowledge about CVI change in response to training/intervention? Participant responses, reachSENCO/head teacher classroom teachers, LSAs years 3–5 n=TBCBartiméus Centre (Netherlands) Teacher CVI Knowledge Assessment SurveyBrief online survey prerandomisation follow-up data collection.Quantitative analysis
What were staff and parents’ responses to the implementation of the CVI project intervention? Participant responses to and interactions with the CVI project interventionSENCO/head teacher classroom teachers, LSA years 3–5 n=TBCSemistructured interviewPostinterventionThematic analysis
What changes to school environment took place? Eg, Whole school/class/individual child changesSENCO/head teacher, classroom teachers, years 3–5 n=23 classroomsPhotographs taken of study designated viewpoints of each wall in years 3–5 classroomsPrerandomisation and postrandomisation Pre-follow-up data collectionQuantitative analysis using validated University of Bristol ‘clutter’ measure
Fidelity, adaptations, and reach
Context of implementation of intervention
SENCO/head teacher n=4Semistructured interviewsPost-follow-up data collectionThematic analysis
Were there any unintended/unexpected consequences from the intervention? What were they? How could they be mitigated (if necessary)? Unintended/unexpected pathways or consequencesSENCO/head teacher, classroom teachers, LSAs years 3–5; parents n=TBCSemistructured InterviewPostinterventionThematic analysis
What were the barriers and facilitators for the implementation of the CVI project intervention? Participant responses to and interactions with the CVI project interventionSENCO/head teacher, classroom teachers, LSAs years 3–5; parents n=TBCSemistructured interviewPostinterventionThematic analysis
CVI project intervention differentiation and usual practice Intervention schools n=4 Control schools n=3Was any contamination detected from intervention to control schools?SENCO/head teacher n=7 (all schools) Head teacher/SENCO and classroom teachers, years 3–5 n=35 classes (control and intervention schools)Semistructured interview Photographs of study designated viewpoints of each wall in years 3–5 classroomsFollow-up data collection
Prerandomisation and at follow-up data collection
Thematic analysis Validated University of Bristol ‘clutter’ measure Quantitative analysis
Were there any changes in school SEND documentation over the course of the study that might indicate contamination? ContaminationSEND policy documents in all schools n=7Structured review of schools’ SEND documentationPre-follow-up data collectionContent analysis
What was different about the CVI project intervention when compared with usual practice within the school? Differentiation, mediators to implementation of the interventionHead teacher/SENCO and classroom teachers, years 3–5 n=TBCSemistructured InterviewFollow-up data collectionThematic analysis
Acceptability of the interventionWas the CVI project intervention acceptable to school staff and parents? Acceptability: participants’ responses and interactions with the interventionIntervention schools: SENCO/head teacher, classroom teacher/LSA years 3–5, parents n=TBCSemistructured interviewPost-follow-upThematic analysis
What were the experiences of staff and parents of taking part in the CVI project intervention? Participant interactions with the CVI project interventionIntervention schools: SENCO/head teacher, classroom teachers, LSAs years 3–5; parents n=TBCSemistructured interviewPost-follow-upThematic analysis
Sustainability of the interventionDid schools/were schools intending to continue with intervention after the trial period? Sustainability, participants’ responses to the intervention, fidelity, quality of sustained use.SENCO/head teacher n=4Semistructured interviewPost-follow-upThematic analysis
How was the intervention integrated into usual practice?SENCO/head teachers, classroom teachers, years 3–5 n=TBCSemistructured interviewPost-follow-upThematic analysis
Was intervention integrated into SEND policies? Mechanisms of sustainability of interventionSEND policy documents from intervention schools n=4Structured review of SEND policy documentsPrerandomisation Post-follow-upContent analysis
What factors made it more/less likely to be sustained/adopted into usual practice? Barriers and facilitators/mediators to sustainability of the interventionSENCO/head teacher n=4Semistructured interviewPost-follow-upThematic analysis
Context Intervention schools n=4What were the experiences of paediatric ophthalmology clinics and orthoptists? Participants responses to the intervention Barriers and facilitators to participation in the CVI project feasibility RCTHead orthoptist n=3Semistructured interviewPost-follow-upThematic analysis
How did the referral process from schools to paediatric ophthalmology clinics work? Fidelity, adaptations, reach, barriers and facilitators Contamination, unintended consequencesPaediatric ophthalmology clinics n=3 SENCO/head teacher n=4Semistructured interviewPost-follow-upThematic analysis
How many children were given study referral letters for their parents? Who were they referred to?SENCO/head teacher n=4Records kept at each school Schools collate dataThroughout trialCount and record
What were the characteristics of the children who attended the paediatric ophthalmology clinic with a study referral letter? Fidelity, dose, reachPaediatric ophthalmology clinics n=3CVI vision assessment Conducted by orthoptistsRecorded on University REDCap database accessed via paediatric ophthalmology clinics
How did contextual factors affect intervention implementation? (eg, funding pressures; reorganisation; academisation, Ofsted, SATS)
Implementation and mechanisms of impact
SENCO/head teacher n=4Semistructured interviewPre-follow-up data collectionThematic analysis
Trial process Intervention and control schools n=7What did schools think about the recruitment process? Trial methods, acceptability to participants.
Participant responses to trial methods
Barriers and facilitators
Head teachers/SENCOs in control and intervention schools n=7Semistructured interviewPostbaseline data collectionThematic analysis
What was the initial recruitment rate? Recruitment dataDemographic data from publicly available government schools databaseExtraction of demographic dataPostrecruitmentDescriptive data summaries
What was the dropout rate of schools from the research? What reasons were given? Participant responses and interactions with the trial processesRecorded as part of trial routine data collectionQuantitative data with some free text/coded responses for reasonsOngoing throughout study periodCount and record
How many parents withdrew their children from the study? What reasons were given? Participant responses and interactions with the trial processesRecorded as part of trial routine data collectionQuantitative data with some free text/coded responses for reasonsOngoing throughout study periodCount and record
How did schools communicate with parents about trial? Mechanisms of impact, fidelity, reachExamination of school documents/websites/newslettersStructured review of documentsOngoing throughout study periodContent analysis
Acceptability of trial processes: how did schools respond to randomisation? Including the arm of the trial that they were allocated to? Acceptability of trial processes, interactions of participants with trial processesSENCO/head teacher in intervention and control schools n=7Semistructured interviewPostrandomisationThematic analysis
  • LSA, Learning Support Assistant; SENCO, special educational needs co-ordinator ; SEND, special educational needs and disability; TBC, to be confirmed.