Vicki L. Plano Clark

Mixed Methods Research Designs in Counseling Psychology

With the increased popularity of qualitative research, researchers in counseling psychology are expanding their methodologies to include mixed methods designs. These designs involve the collection, analysis, and integration of quantitative and qualitative data in a single or multiphase study. This article presents an overview of mixed methods research designs. It defines mixed methods research, discusses its origins and philosophical basis, advances steps and procedures used in these designs, and identifies 6 different types of designs. Important design features are illustrated using studies published in the counseling literature. Finally, the article ends with recommendations for designing, implementing, and reporting mixed methods studies in the literature and for discussing their viability and continued usefulness in the field of counseling psychology.

The Adoption and Practice of Mixed Methods: U.S. Trends in Federally Funded Health-Related Research

Mixed methods research that combines qualitative and quantitative approaches is an emergent method that is achieving increasing acceptance and use across disciplines. Despite the importance of funding to the adoption of a new research approach, there is no clear understanding of U.S. funding agencies’ support for mixed methods. This study examines recent trends in health-related mixed methods projects funded by the National Institutes of Health and similar federal agencies. The results indicate that mixed methods projects are getting funded and their numbers are increasing but that their prevalence is still low overall. The nature of the projects indicates that researchers are adopting many conventions of the field of mixed methods research and planning approaches that integrate advanced qualitative and quantitative designs and procedures. The article concludes with recommendations to enhance the dynamic relationship between researchers’ decisions to propose mixed methods studies and existing extramural f...Mixed methods research that combines qualitative and quantitative approaches is an emergent method that is achieving increasing acceptance and use across disciplines. Despite the importance of funding to the adoption of a new research approach, there is no clear understanding of U.S. funding agencies’ support for mixed methods. This study examines recent trends in health-related mixed methods projects funded by the National Institutes of Health and similar federal agencies. The results indicate that mixed methods projects are getting funded and their numbers are increasing but that their prevalence is still low overall. The nature of the projects indicates that researchers are adopting many conventions of the field of mixed methods research and planning approaches that integrate advanced qualitative and quantitative designs and procedures. The article concludes with recommendations to enhance the dynamic relationship between researchers’ decisions to propose mixed methods studies and existing extramural funding mechanisms.

Mixed Methods Approaches in Family Science Research

The complex phenomena of interest to family scientists require the use of quantitative and qualitative approaches. Researchers across the social sciences are now turning to mixed methods designs that combine these two approaches. Mixed methods research has great promise for addressing family science topics, but only if researchers understand the design options and procedures that accompany this methodological choice. Discussions of mixed methods in the family science literature are difficult to locate, and little has been written about how family scientists apply this approach in practice. This article presents an overview of mixed methods research, including its definition, terminology, and design types, and examines how it is being successfully used and reported in family research journals. The authors review the application of mixed methods designs in 19 studies and discuss design features and issues that arose during implementation. They conclude with recommendations for family scientists considering using this approach.

Best practices in mixed methods for quality of life research.

There is a growing priority in all areas of health research to develop new methodologies to improve the quality and scientific power of data, and this is leading to an extraordinary surge in methodological diversity. This diversity reflects the nature of the problems facing health sciences and health care delivery, such as disparities among populations, age groups, ethnicities, and cultures; poor adherence to recommended treatments; behavioral risk factors contributing to disability and health; and the translation of research findings into applied settings. The diversity in methodology also signals a growing acceptance of behavioral and social science perspectives in clinical research, the formation of interdisciplinary research teams, and use of multi-faceted approaches. Such approaches are important to investigations of complex health problems, which call for incorporating patient and family point of view, and cultural models of illness and health. Contributing to this interest in methodological development has been the increased methodological sophistication of mixed methods research, and practices related to combining quantitative and qualitative research. Researchers are using approaches such as in-depth interviews, field observations, and patient records to understand individual experiences, participant involvement in interventions, and barriers to and facilitators of treatment. These qualitative approaches are often combined with data from clinical trials, surveys of attitudes and beliefs, economic or medical data to better understand health problems [1]. Evidence in the published literature attests to the current use of mixed methods approaches in health-related research, from cardiology [2], pharmacy [3], family medicine [4], pediatric oncology nursing [5], mental health [6, 7], disabilities [8] and nutrition [9], in both clinical settings [10] and in the social context of daily activities and relationships [11]. Scientists and clinicians working in the area of quality of life broadly, and more specifically in health outcomes assessment, have found mixed methods to be increasingly important for both theoretical and methodological reasons. Quality of life researchers often examine questions that have multiple epistemological, scientific, and clinical foci and are faced with integrating diverse perspectives, types of evidence, and audiences or stakeholders. Data may range from biological data from a patient’s clinical record, to health care delivery indicators and costs, to household and community-level outcomes such as loss of productivity, and regional or national policies. The journal Quality of Life Research has a long-standing commitment to publishing high-quality research that brings both qualitative A. C. Klassen (&) Drexel University School of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA, USA e-mail: ack57@drexel.edu

Mixed Methods in Biomedical and Health Services Research

Mixed-methods studies, in which qualitative1 and quantitative methods are combined in a single program of inquiry,2 are increasingly common and can be valuable in biomedical and health services research, in which the complementary strengths of each approach can characterize complex phenomena more fully than either approach alone.3,4 To effectively address complex problems in health and healthcare delivery, including heterogeneous and dynamic systems of care, a multilevel approach is needed to capture the perspectives of patients, providers, and organizations. Mixed methods offer enhanced capabilities to this end. Consequently, interest in mixed-methods studies is growing among funders, as evidenced by recent calls for proposals using these methods from the National Institutes of Health (NIH),5 the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,6 and independent research organizations (eg, Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute)7 and foundations (eg, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation).8 Training in mixed methods is also sponsored by NIH,9 the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality,10 and professional associations.11 Nevertheless, written guidance on how to conduct rigorous mixed-methods research is not readily available to the general readership of peer-reviewed biomedical and health services journals, a group who may be less familiar with this approach. Accordingly, in this article, we describe applications of mixed methods in biomedical and health services research and provide a concise overview of key principles to facilitate best practices. First, we define mixed-methods approaches and present illustrations from published literature, including cardiovascular care. Second, we summarize standards for the design and conduct of rigorous mixed-methods studies. Third, we highlight 4 central considerations for investigators interested in using these methods. Mixed methods can be useful in the pursuit of a broad range of focal topics and study aims in the biomedical and health services research arenas, including, but not …

The Role of Group Dynamics in Mixed Methods Health Sciences Research Teams

This article explores the group dynamics of mixed methods health sciences research teams. The authors conceptualize mixed methods research teams as “representational groups,” in which members bring both their organizational and professional groups (e.g., organizational affiliations, methodological expertise) and their identity groups, such as gender or race, to the work of research. Although diversity and complementarity are intrinsic to mixed methods teams, these qualities also present particular challenges. Such challenges include (a) dealing with differences, (b) trusting the “other,” (c) creating a meaningful group, (d) handling essential conflicts and tensions, and (e) enacting effective leadership roles. The authors describe these challenges and, drawing from intergroup relations theory, propose guiding principles that may be useful to mixed methods health sciences research teams.

Applying Three Strategies for Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Databases in a Mixed Methods Study of a Nontraditional Graduate Education Program

A central issue for mixed methods research is for researchers to effectively integrate (or mix) the quantitative and qualitative data in their studies. Despite extensive methodological discussions about integration, researchers using mixed methods approaches struggle with translating these discussions into practice and often make inadequate use of integration in their studies. The authors examined their integration practices as they applied three literature-based strategies within the context of one mixed methods study about a nontraditional graduate education program. From this examination, the authors describe the processes, products, uses, and challenges that materialized as they merged their quantitative and qualitative databases to develop a better understanding of participants’ perceptions of their experience in the program.

Practices for Embedding an Interpretive Qualitative Approach Within a Randomized Clinical Trial

The embedded approach is a mixed methods design that is most commonly used when qualitative methods are embedded within intervention designs such as randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Scholars have noted challenges associated with embedded procedures and expressed concern that embedded designs undervalue and underutilize interpretive qualitative approaches. This article examines these issues in the context of a study about cancer pain management where qualitative methods were embedded within an RCT design. We describe our practices for stating embedded research questions, designing embedded qualitative data collection within the constraints of the RCT, and developing enriched understandings of the RCT through an interpretive qualitative analysis. These practices provide guidance for intervention researchers planning to embed qualitative components within RCT designs.

In Conversation: High School Students Talk to Students about Tobacco Use and Prevention Strategies

The purpose of this multi-site qualitative study is to explore how adolescents talk about tobacco use. Sixty-six students in four high schools became co-researchers and led focus group interviews with 205 fellow students. From the interviews, the authors develop a story line that reports how adolescents begin smoking, how smoking becomes a pervasive influence, how attitudes form about smoking, what it means to be a smoker, and, ultimately, student suggestions for tobacco use prevention. Embedded within this story line are complex questions and contradictions. We explore whether peers really are influential, if the media is important, whether smoking is a matter of personal choice, if schools actually promote tobacco use, and whether adolescents can quit smoking.

Conceptualizing Longitudinal Mixed Methods Designs A Methodological Review of Health Sciences Research

Longitudinal research is well suited for investigating phenomena that change over time. With the growing acceptance of mixed methods, researchers are combining qualitative and quantitative approaches within longitudinal research. However, little attention has been paid to how researchers integrate longitudinal mixed methods databases. The purpose of this methodological review was to describe how researchers combine mixed methods and longitudinal approaches in practice and delineate dimensions and issues inherent within these complex designs. We examined published empirical studies from the health sciences that self-identified as longitudinal and mixed methods. Our results identify major dimensions, variations, and issues for designing longitudinal mixed methods research and suggest recommendations for researchers interested in using this complex approach.