The content validity index was established to be

This preview shows page 5 - 7 out of 8 pages.

academicians. The content validity index was established to be above 0.80. This was beyond the suggested minimum of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978). Items were anchored on a five-point Likert-like scale (1-5) ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. The adjusted questionnaire had 50 items. Quality health service delivery P-C-P model established by Philip and Hazlet (1997) was utilized. In this context, the QSD measurements encompassed output, process and input. The uniqueness with this model is that it holds the personnel and organization accountable for service delivery and the proof as to whether service delivered is of quality and met the intendent purpose depends on the client (Philip and Hazlett, 1997). For validation purposes, the items in the tool were acquiesced to 10 specialists comprising both local government practitioners and academicians. The content validity index was established to be above 0.80. This was beyond the suggested minimum of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978). Items were anchored on a five-point Likert-like scale (1-5) ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. The adjusted questionnaire had 23 items. Validity and reliability For validation purposes, the items in the tool were acquiesced to 10 specialists comprising both local government practitioners and academicians. All study variables registered a content validity index which was established to be above 0.80. This was beyond the suggested minimum of 0.70 (Nunnally, 1978). Similarly, the reliability scale of the two scales of internal control INTERNAL CONTROLS Control Environment Control Activities Risk assessment Information & communication Monitoring & Evaluation QHSD Pivotal (output) Core (processes) Peripheral (input) H Control Variables Gender Education Level Age Tenure