Practical Guide to Achieve Rigor and Data Integration in Mixed Methods Research
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.iee.v42n3e02Keywords:
qualitative research, data analysis, nursing researchAbstract
Mixed methods research represents a dynamic approach, that combines quantitative and qualitative perspectives in the same study to answer complex questions, beyond the reach of each method used separately. This type of research is increasingly used in health sciences and in social sciences, where it is possible to identify important contributions to knowledge and the practice, derived from the characteristic integration of this approach. Nevertheless, it important to reiterate the importance of recognizing their own perspectives, methods, rigor criteria, and challenges. This work presents general aspects of the epistemological perspective of mixed methods research, describes basic and advanced designs, forms and possible integration moments of each design, as well as the rigor criteria that guide these types of studies. Graphic elements are presented to facilitate recognizing the structure of each design. Furthermore, a visual tool is introduced denominated “anatomy of mixed methods research”, which seeks to guide researchers regarding each of the key elements in the design and development of this type of research.
Downloads
References
1. Poth CN, Molina-Azorin JF, Fetters MD. Virtual special issue on “design of mixed methods research: Past advancements, present conversations, and future possibilities”. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2022; 16(3):274–80.
2. Reed PG. The philosophical turn to mixed methods for nursing science. Nursing Science Quarterly. 2021;3 4(3):263–7.
3. Younas A, Pedersen M, Tayaben JL. Review of mixed-methods research in nursing. Nursing Research. 2019; 68(6):464-72.
4. Fetters MD, Molina-Azorin JF. The journal of mixed methods research starts a new decade: The mixed methods research integration trilogy and its dimensions. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2017; 11(3):291–307.
5. Creswell JW, Plano-Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 2017.
6. Lorenzini E. Pesquisa de métodos mistos nas ciências da saúde. Revista Cuidarte. 2017; 8(2):1549-60.
7. Onwuegbuzie AJ, Johnson RB, Collins KM. Call for mixed analysis: A philosophical framework for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches. 2009; 3(2):114–39.
8. de la Cuesta Benjumea C. Assessing and achieving quality in qualitative research: Clues for researchers in training. Investigación y Educación en Enfermería. 2024; 42(1):e02.
9. Guerrero-Castañeda RF, do Prado ML, Ojeda-Vargas MG. Reflexión crítica epistemológica sobre métodos mixtos en investigación de enfermería. Enfermería Universitaria. 2016; 13(4):246-52.
10. Onwuegbuzie AJ, Corrigan JA. Intra-study matching considerations when using mixed methods-based research approaches: A critical dialectical pluralistic approach. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches. 2021; 13(2):116-36.
11. Johnson RB. Dialectical pluralism and mixed research. American Behavioral Scientist. 2012; 56(6):751-4.
12. Fetters MD, Curry LA, Creswell JW. Achieving integration in mixed methods designs–principles and practices. Health Services Research. 2013; 48(6pt2):2134-56.
13. Neves ET, da Silva JH, Urbanetto JS, Buboltz FL, Kegler JJ, Ribeiro CF, et al. Quality of life in the voice of children who depend on health technologies: Mixed methods study. Journal of Pediatric Nursing. 2023; 73:e83-e92.
14. Lorenzini E, dos Santos JLG, Schmidt CR, Will DEM, de Espíndola MB, Cerny RZ, et al. University students’ readiness and attitudes to learn in the context of remote teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil: A mixed methods research study. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches. 2022; 14(3):101-21.
15. Lorenzini E, Oelke ND, Marck PB. Safety culture in healthcare: mixed method study. Journal of Health Organization and Management. 2021; 35(8):1080-97.
16. Creswell JW, Guetterman T. Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. (5th ed.). Sage 2018.
17. Jafarpour D, El-Amier N, Feine J, Bedos C, Abi-Nader S, Esfandiari S, et al. 3D printing vs traditional workflow for the fabrication of mandibular implant overdentures: study protocol for a mixed-methods cross-over RCT. Trials. 2024; 25(1):267.
18. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. British Medical Journal. 2010; 340:c332.
19. Poth CN, Searle M, Aquilina AM, Ge J, Elder A. Assessing competency-based evaluation course impacts: A mixed methods case study. Evaluation and Program Planning. 2020; 79:101789.
20. Greysen SR, Allen R, Lucas GI, Wang EA, Rosenthal MS. Understanding transitions in care from hospital to homeless shelter: A mixed-methods, community-based participatory approach. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2012; 27(11):1484-91.
21. NeMoyer A, Alvarez K, Mukthineni R, Tendulkar S, Alegría M. Addressing youth-focused research questions in a community context: Collecting and integrating mixed methods data at multiple ecological levels with the PhotoStories project. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2021; 15(4):507-25.
22. Schmidt CR, Barwick M, Lorenzini E. Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the knowledge translation planning template for the Brazilian context. Texto & Contexto Enfermagem. 2023; 32:e20230116.
23. Schoonenboom J, Johnson RB. How to construct a mixed methods research design. Kolner Zeitschrift fur Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. 2017; 69(Suppl 2):107-31.
24. Eckhardt AL, DeVon HA. The MIXED framework: A novel approach to evaluating mixed‐methods rigor. Nursing Inquiry. 2017; 24(4):e12189.
25. Hong QN, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, et al. Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2019; 111:49-59.e1.
26. de Oliveira JLC, de Magalhães AMM, Matsuda LM, dos Santos JLG, Souto RQ, Riboldi C de O, et al. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool: Strengthening the methodological rigor of mixed methods research studies in nursing. Texto & Contexto Enfermagem. 2021; 30:e20200603.
27. Lincoln YS, Guba EG. Naturalistic inquiry. United States: Age Publications; 1985.
28. Koch T. Establishing rigour in qualitative research: the decision trail. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2006; 53(1):91-100.
29. Onwuegbuzie AJ, Johnson RB. The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools. 2006; 13(1):48-63.
30. Dellinger AB, Leech NL. Toward a unified validation framework in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2007; 1(4):309-32.
31. O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2008;13(2):92-8.
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
Versions
- 2024-11-21 (2)
- 2024-11-15 (1)
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Investigación y Educación en Enfermería
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Derechos de propiedad / Direitos de Propriedade
English: If the article is accepted for publication, all copyright will be of exclusive property of Investigación y Educación en Enfermería. The text and the graphics included in the publication are exclusive responsibility of the authors and not necessarily reflect the thought of the Editorial Committee.
Español: Si el artículo es aprobado para publicación, todos los derechos son de propiedad de Investigación y Educación en Enfermería. El texto y las gráficas incluidas en la publicación son de exclusiva responsabilidad de los autores y no necesariamente refleja el pensamiento del Comité Editorial.
Português: Se o artigo for aceito para publicação, todos os direitos autorais serão de propriedade exclusiva de Investigación y Educación en Enfermería. O texto e os gráficos incluídos na publicação são de responsabilidade exclusiva dos autores e não refletem necessariamente o pensamento do Comitê Editorial.
