Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Appraising Mixed Methods Research

  • Reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 649.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 849.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Andrew S, Halcomb EJ, editors. Mixed methods research for nursing and the health sciences. London, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman A. Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qual Res. 2006a;6(1):97–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman A. Paradigm peace and the implications for quality. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2006b;9(2):111–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman A. June 1989 and beyond: Julia Brannen’s contribution to mixed methods research. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2014;17(2):121–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 5th ed. Los Angeles: Sage; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Critical Appraisal Skills Programme. CASP checklists. 2017. Retrieved from http://www.casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists.

  • Dellinger AB, Leech NL. Toward a unified validation framework in mixed methods research. J Mixed Methods Res. 2007;1(4):309–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Greene JC. Mixed methods in social inquiry, vol. 9. San Francisco: Wiley; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene JC, Caracelli VJ, Graham WF. Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educ Eval Policy Anal. 1989;11:255–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halcomb EJ, Hickman L. Mixed methods research. Nurs Stand. 2015;29(32):42–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heyvaert M, Hannes K, Maes B, Onghena P. Critical appraisal of mixed methods studies. J Mixed Methods Res. 2013;7(4):302–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacInnes J. Mixed methods studies: a guide to critical appraisal. Br J Cardiac Nurs. 2009;4(12): 588–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.c4587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onwuegbuzie AJ, Johnson RB. The validity issue in mixed research. Res Schools. 2006;13(1): 48–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Sale JE, Brazil K. A strategy to identify critical appraisal criteria for primary mixed-method studies. Qual Quant. 2004;38(4):351–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Tashakkori A, Teddlie C. Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2010.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang W, Creswell J. The use of “mixing” procedure of mixed methods in health services research. Med Care. 2013;51(8):e51–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Nursing, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia

    Elizabeth J. Halcomb

Authors
  1. Elizabeth J. Halcomb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth J. Halcomb .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Science and Health, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia

    Pranee Liamputtong

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Halcomb, E.J. (2019). Appraising Mixed Methods Research. In: Liamputtong, P. (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_121

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation