Advertisement

Appraising Mixed Methods Research

  • Elizabeth J. HalcombEmail author
Reference work entry

Abstract

There is increasing interest in the use of mixed methods research approaches among health researchers. While mixed methods research has the potential to reveal rich data and deeper understandings of complex phenomena, it needs to be evaluated with the same level of critical appraisal as other methodologies. To date, however, much of the discourse around the critical appraisal of mixed methods research has discussed the challenges and considerations underlying critical appraisal. There has been limited agreement reached on optimal methods of evaluating this body of literature. This chapter will synthesize the literature on critically appraising mixed methods research and provide advice to those reviewing mixed methods papers around considerations in critical appraisal for this type of research.

Keywords

Mixed methods research Critical appraisal Methodological quality Reporting quality 

References

  1. Andrew S, Halcomb EJ, editors. Mixed methods research for nursing and the health sciences. London, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009.Google Scholar
  2. Andrew S, Salamonson Y, Halcomb EJ. Integrating mixed methods data analysis using NVivo©: an example examining attrition and persistence of nursing students. Int J Multiple Res Approaches. 2008;2(1):36–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrew S, Salamonson Y, Everrett B, Halcomb EJ, Davidson PM. Beyond the ceiling effect: using a mixed methods approach to measure patient satisfaction. Int J Multiple Res Approaches. 2011;5(1):52–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashley C, Brown A, Halcomb E, Peters K. Registered nurses transitioning from acute care to primary healthcare employment: a qualitative insight into nurses’ experiences. J Clin Nurs. 2018a;27(3–4):661–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashley C, Halcomb E, Brown A, Peters K. Experiences of registered nurses transitioning from employment in acute care to primary health care – quantitative findings from a mixed methods study. J Clin Nurs. 2018b;27(1–2):355–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashley C, Halcomb E, Brown A, Peters K. Exploring the reasons why nurses transition from acute care to primary health care: a mixed methods study. Appl Nurs Res. in press-a. Accepted 4 Sept 2017.Google Scholar
  7. Ashley C, Peters K, Brown A, Halcomb E. Reflections on transitioning and future career intentions of experienced nurses new to primary health care nursing. J Nurs Manag. in press-b. Accepted 14 Nov 2017.Google Scholar
  8. Barnat M, Bosse E, Trautwein C. The guiding role of theory in mixed-methods research: combining individual and institutional perspectives on the transition to higher education. Theory Method Higher Educ Res. 2017.  https://doi.org/10.1108/S2056-375220170000003001.Google Scholar
  9. Bowers B, Cohen LW, Elliot AE, Grabowski DC, Fishman NW, Sharkey SS, … Kemper P. Creating and supporting a mixed methods health services research team. Health Serv Res. 2013;48(6 Pt 2):2157–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bryman A. Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qual Res. 2006a;6(1):97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bryman A. Paradigm peace and the implications for quality. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2006b;9(2):111–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bryman A. June 1989 and beyond: Julia Brannen’s contribution to mixed methods research. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2014;17(2):121–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Collins KMT, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Johnson RB. Securing a place at the table: a review and extension of legitimation criteria for the conduct of mixed research. Am Behav Sci. 2012;56(6):849–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2011.Google Scholar
  15. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 5th ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2018.Google Scholar
  16. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2007.Google Scholar
  17. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP checklists. 2017. Retrieved from http://www.casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists.
  18. Dellinger AB, Leech NL. Toward a unified validation framework in mixed methods research. J Mixed Methods Res. 2007;1(4):309–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fàbregues S, Paré M-H, Meneses J. Operationalizing and conceptualizing quality in mixed methods research: a multiple case study of the disciplines of education, nursing, psychology, and sociology. J Mixed Methods Res, online early. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689817751774
  20. Greene JC. Mixed methods in social inquiry, vol. 9. San Francisco: Wiley; 2007.Google Scholar
  21. Greene JC, Caracelli VJ, Graham WF. Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educ Eval Policy Anal. 1989;11:255–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Halcomb EJ, Andrew S. Practical considerations for higher degree research students undertaking mixed methods projects. Int J Multiple Res Approaches. 2009;3(2):153–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Halcomb EJ, Hickman L. Mixed methods research. Nurs Stand. 2015;29(32):42–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heyvaert M, Hannes K, Maes B, Onghena P. Critical appraisal of mixed methods studies. J Mixed Methods Res. 2013;7(4):302–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lavelle E, Vuk J, Barber C. Twelve tips for getting started using mixed methods in medical education research. Med Teach. 2013;35(4):272–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MacInnes J. Mixed methods studies: a guide to critical appraisal. Br J Cardiac Nurs. 2009;4(12): 588–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Cathain A. Assessing the quality of mixed methods research: toward a comprehensive framework. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, editors. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2010. p. 531–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. Integration and publications as indicators of “yield” from mixed methods studies. J Mixed Methods Res. 2007a;1(2):147–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. Why, and how, mixed methods research is undertaken in health services research in England: a mixed methods study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007b;7(1):85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2008;13(2):92–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. BMJ. 2010;341:c4587.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c4587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Onwuegbuzie AJ, Johnson RB. The validity issue in mixed research. Res Schools. 2006;13(1): 48–63.Google Scholar
  34. Pace R, Pluye P, Bartlett G, Macaulay AC, Salsberg J, Jagosh J, Seller R. Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2012;49(1):47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pluye P, Robert E, Cargo M, Bartlett G, O’Cathain A, Griffiths F, Boardman F, Gagnon MP, Rousseau MC. Proposal: a mixed methods appraisal tool for systematic mixed studies reviews. 2011. Retrieved from http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com.
  36. Sale JE, Brazil K. A strategy to identify critical appraisal criteria for primary mixed-method studies. Qual Quant. 2004;38(4):351–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scammon DL, Tomoaia-Cotisel A, Day RL, Day J, Kim J, Waitzman NJ, … Magill MK. Connecting the dots and merging meaning: using mixed methods to study primary care delivery transformation. Health Serv Res. 2013;48(6pt2):2181–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Souto RQ, Khanassov V, Hong QN, Bush PL, Vedel I, Pluye P. Systematic mixed studies reviews: updating results on the reliability and efficiency of the mixed methods appraisal tool. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015;52(1):500–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Tashakkori A, Teddlie C. Quality of inferences in mixed methods research: calling for an integrative framework. In M. M. Bergman (Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research: Theory and applications. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2008. p. 101–19.Google Scholar
  40. Tashakkori A, Teddlie C. Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Teddlie C, Tashakkori A. Foundations of mixed methods research: integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2009.Google Scholar
  42. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19(6):349–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wisdom JP, Cavaleri MA, Onwuegbuzie AJ, Green CA. Methodological reporting in qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods health services research articles. Health Serv Res. 2012;47(2):721–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhang W, Creswell J. The use of “mixing” procedure of mixed methods in health services research. Med Care. 2013;51(8):e51–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of NursingUniversity of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations