Eir viewpoints on a particular topic in either English or Spanish. After the completion of each interview, interviewers simultaneously transcribed and translated the Spanish interviews into English.1Schools in North Carolina were grouped into two strata ?urban and rural ?and were randomly selected for Mirogabalin web participation in the study based in proportion to the number of Latino students enrolled in the school. A roster of all youth who self-identified as Hispanic/ Latino or had Hispanic/Latino surnames was prepared by each randomly selected school. These youth were then contacted and screened for eligibility. Only youth born abroad in Latin America or the Caribbean (i.e. Cuba, the Dominican Republic, or the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico) were eligible for inclusion in the study and only one youth per household could participate. We screened 704 households; 58 included an eligible adolescent; 325 (80 of those eligible) indicated an interest in participating. Primarily due to scheduling difficulties, we interviewed only a total of 283 caregiver-youth dyads. Thus, our final response rate was 69 . Those who refused to participate almost uniformly (80 out of 83) indicated that they did not have sufficient time off work to complete a 2-hour interview with their child.J Adolesc Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 September 7.Ko and PerreiraPageThe translations and transcriptions were subsequently reviewed and verified by the Principal Investigator and discussed in weekly team meetings with the interviewers/transcribers.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptData Analysis As recommended by Miles and Huberman (1994), the analytic process began during the data collection phase of the study and proceeded in three stages. In the first stage, interviewers met weekly with the principal investigator to discuss the interviews, develop notes on key themes, and write vignettes to summarize the survey data for each adolescent interviewed and to link it to the qualitative data, a procedure similar to the technique used by Salda (2003) used to link longitudinal qualitative interviews. These meetings provided the principal investigator an opportunity to provide feedback to interviewers, identify themes brought up by adolescents where additional probing was needed, and work with the interviewers to check for rival explanations and identify Luteolin 7-O-��-D-glucosideMedChemExpress Cynaroside atypical cases as the interviewing proceeded. After the completion of data collection, transcripts were uploaded into ATLAS.ti Version 5.0 (Muhr, 1997) for additional analysis. In the second stage of the analysis, the authors independently read each transcript in order to identify main ideas and meanings. They generated tentative labels to capture the essence of each idea and compared and contrasted their notes. In the third stage, we reviewed the data and clustered similar ideas together into themes and codes representative of each theme (Miles Huberman, 1994). Based on the coding scheme developed, the first author then coded transcripts using ATLAS.ti. The constant comparison method was used to identify other emerging themes, with all transcripts being re-read to ensure consistent coding of the emerging theme. Upon the completion of coding, the first and second author created domain charts that mapped concepts and the interrelationships between concepts. These charts helped us to evaluate atypical cases that did not fit the pattern identified for the majority. All quotes presente.Eir viewpoints on a particular topic in either English or Spanish. After the completion of each interview, interviewers simultaneously transcribed and translated the Spanish interviews into English.1Schools in North Carolina were grouped into two strata ?urban and rural ?and were randomly selected for participation in the study based in proportion to the number of Latino students enrolled in the school. A roster of all youth who self-identified as Hispanic/ Latino or had Hispanic/Latino surnames was prepared by each randomly selected school. These youth were then contacted and screened for eligibility. Only youth born abroad in Latin America or the Caribbean (i.e. Cuba, the Dominican Republic, or the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico) were eligible for inclusion in the study and only one youth per household could participate. We screened 704 households; 58 included an eligible adolescent; 325 (80 of those eligible) indicated an interest in participating. Primarily due to scheduling difficulties, we interviewed only a total of 283 caregiver-youth dyads. Thus, our final response rate was 69 . Those who refused to participate almost uniformly (80 out of 83) indicated that they did not have sufficient time off work to complete a 2-hour interview with their child.J Adolesc Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2011 September 7.Ko and PerreiraPageThe translations and transcriptions were subsequently reviewed and verified by the Principal Investigator and discussed in weekly team meetings with the interviewers/transcribers.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptData Analysis As recommended by Miles and Huberman (1994), the analytic process began during the data collection phase of the study and proceeded in three stages. In the first stage, interviewers met weekly with the principal investigator to discuss the interviews, develop notes on key themes, and write vignettes to summarize the survey data for each adolescent interviewed and to link it to the qualitative data, a procedure similar to the technique used by Salda (2003) used to link longitudinal qualitative interviews. These meetings provided the principal investigator an opportunity to provide feedback to interviewers, identify themes brought up by adolescents where additional probing was needed, and work with the interviewers to check for rival explanations and identify atypical cases as the interviewing proceeded. After the completion of data collection, transcripts were uploaded into ATLAS.ti Version 5.0 (Muhr, 1997) for additional analysis. In the second stage of the analysis, the authors independently read each transcript in order to identify main ideas and meanings. They generated tentative labels to capture the essence of each idea and compared and contrasted their notes. In the third stage, we reviewed the data and clustered similar ideas together into themes and codes representative of each theme (Miles Huberman, 1994). Based on the coding scheme developed, the first author then coded transcripts using ATLAS.ti. The constant comparison method was used to identify other emerging themes, with all transcripts being re-read to ensure consistent coding of the emerging theme. Upon the completion of coding, the first and second author created domain charts that mapped concepts and the interrelationships between concepts. These charts helped us to evaluate atypical cases that did not fit the pattern identified for the majority. All quotes presente.