The document describes a study on the social well-being and social interaction of female prisoners. It outlines the proposed and actual procedures for quantitative and qualitative data collection. For the quantitative pre-test, scales measuring social well-being and social interaction were administered to 10 prisoners. The actual study involved administering the same scales to 200 prisoners at the Correctional Institute for Women. Qualitative interviews were also conducted with prisoners who scored highest or lowest on the scales. The document reflects on lessons learned from adjusting the study procedures during data collection.

1. Social Well-Being and Social Interaction
of Female Prisoners
Group #1:
Cocjin, Rizzia
Ditching, Barbara
Guzman, Dominique
Yee, Louvette

2. Based on the proposal
Quantitative: Pre-test
Give consent forms to the selected female detainees
Administer the Social Well-Being Scale and Social Interaction Scale
 All participants will answer at the same time.
We will give a debriefing after the completion of the last scale.
The female prisoners will be informed that they will be possible
participants for the interview part of the study after the scoring of
the scales.
The participants will receive a token of appreciation after the
debriefing.

3. Based on the proposal
Qualitative: Pre-test
Conduct interviews a week after the scales have been scored.
Interviewees will be those who got the highest and lowest scores in
social well-being.
The interview will take place in a room assigned to the researchers
by prison authorities.
 One researcher will be the interviewer while another will serve as
the documenter. We will give additional tokens the interviewees.

4. Based on Actual Data
Gathering
Pre-test Actual
• Office of the wardens Multi-purpose Hall
• 2 rooms with 3 200 female prisoners
prisoners each from Correctional
• 10 female participants Institute for Women
from San Juan City Jail (50 for buffer)
• one test administrator 5 tests are already
and one assistant per invalid
room to assist the Still on going…
participants

5. Instruments
Social Well-Being Scale (SWBS) by Corey Keyes (1998)
Measures 5 dimensions of social well-being (social
integration .73, social acceptance .42, social
contribution . 67, social actualization .64 and social
coherence .65)
The internal reliability of overall social well-being
scale is .81.
7-point Likert-type scale
Translated in Filipino by Ms. Oblena
No back translation in English

6. Instruments
Social Interaction (SIS)
A scale made by the researchers based on the
definition of social interaction on how a person
communicates, interacts and socializes with other
people.
It relates to how people make friends and whether
they have a sense of belonging.
5-point Likert-type scale
Translated to English by Ms. Flores
No back translation in Filipino

7. Pre-test Result: Social Interaction
Scale
Deleted Items:
# 4, 17, 24, 29, 30
Reliability
Cronbach's Alpha .718
Cronbach's Alpha Based on Standardized Items
N of Items .730 25

8. Data Gathering: Revised
Procedures
Pre-test: Quantitative
 Consent letters were given and signed.
 The test administrator read the instructions.
 All participants who went to Room 1 answered at the same time
and same as in Room 2
 Tokens are given as debriefing material.
 BJMP is informed on who was to be interviewed

9. Data Gathering: Revised
Procedures
Pre-test: Qualitative
The detainee with the highest score in Social Interaction Scale was
interviewed.
The interviewer used a 19-item semi-structured interview
questionnaire.
There was one interviewer and one note-taker.

10. Reflection on the data Gathering:
Adjust to the availability of participants, chaperone and
the group members
People have their own schedules to keep and we are to
respect their priority.
Unavoidable extraneous variables should be controlled.
Be resourceful or handy when dealing with any
extraneous variables.
Always remember your first proposal. Stick with the 1 st
plan if it will workout… if not there is always plan B but
be sure to take note on revisions.

11. Reflection on the data Gathering:
Make sure that your participants’ demography is based on
what you proposed (language barrier: participants’ native
language is Filipino or one who can understand Filipino
and English)
 The treatment given to all participants should be equal.
There is no special treatment.
The researchers must be aware of the participants’ health
condition (eyesight problems) when printing the
instruments needed in the study.
The researchers must be open minded on what kind of
people they are to deal with.

12. Timeline
BJMP Letters (Request letter to the authorities and
2-Jul permission letter from the school)
9-Jul Quantitative Pre-test in San Juan City Jail (10 prisoners)
27-Jul 1st batch of Actual Testing in CIW (100 prisoners)
qualitative Pre-test in San Juan City Jail (interview of one
28-Jul prisoner)
2-Aug 2nd batch of Actual Testing in CIW (100 prisoners)
6-Aug 1st batch of interview
13-Aug 2nd batch of interview
20-Aug 3rd batch of interview (tentative)