Mixed methods research is a robust and growing methodology in many fields, including education. We drew upon the influential work of Greene et al., Ivankova and Kawamura, and Alise and Teddlie to explore the landscape of published mixed methods research in special education. We conducted a systematic literature review of 15 top-ranked journals in special education from 2007 to July 2019. Specifically, we used the seminal work of Greene et al. as a conceptual framework for describing how researchers designed and implemented their mixed methods research studies. We found a very small proportion of the total number of original research studies purported to use mixed methods (0.62%; N = 43). Within this small set of mixed methods research studies, very few explicitly articulated and defended how they addressed the recommended components identified by Greene et al. Implications for applying mixed methods to special education research are discussed.
*Ahlgrim-DelzellL.RiveraC. (2015). A content comparison of literacy lessons from 2004 and 2010 for students with moderate and severe intellectual disability. Exceptionality, 23(4), 258–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2015.1064417
2.
AliseM. A.TeddlieC. (2010). A continuation of the paradigm wars? Prevalence rates of methodological approaches across the social/behavioral sciences. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(2), 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809360805
3.
*AyvazogluN. R.KozubF. M.ButeraG.MurrayM. J. (2015). Determinants and challenges in physical activity participation in families with children with high functioning autism spectrum disorders from a family systems perspective. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 47, 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2015.08.015
4.
BaglieriS.ValleJ. W.ConnorD. J.GallagherD. J. (2011). Disability studies in education: The need for a plurality of perspectives on disability. Remedial and Special Education, 32(4), 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510362200
5.
*BalA.SullivanA. L.HarperJ. (2014). A situated analysis of special education disproportionality for systemic transformation in an urban school district. Remedial and Special Education, 35(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932513507754
6.
*BalcazarF. E.Taylor-RitzlerT.DimpflS.Portillo-PenaN.GuzmanA.SchiffR.MurvayM. (2012). Improving the transition outcomes of low-income minority youth with disabilities. Exceptionality, 20(2), 114–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2012.670599
7.
BazeleyP. (2012). Integrative analysis strategies for mixed data sources. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6), 814–828. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211426330
8.
*BenekeS.OstroskyM. M. (2015). Effects of the project approach on preschoolers with diverse abilities. Infants & Young Children, 28(4), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0000000000000045
9.
BergmanM. M. (2008). Advances in mixed methods research: Theories and applications. SAGE.
10.
*BertilssonI.GyllenstenA. L.OpheimA.GardG.HammarlundC. S. (2018). Understanding one’s body and movements from the perspective of young adults with autism: A mixed-methods study. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 78, 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.05.002
11.
BiestaG. (2010). Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 95–118). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335193.n4
12.
*BlackburnC.HarveyM. (2019). “We weren’t prepared for this”: Parents’ experiences of information and support following the premature birth of their infant. Infants & Young Children, 32(3), 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0000000000000142
13.
*BogartK. R.FrandrupE.LockeT.ThompsonH.WeberN.YatesJ.. . .HemmeschA. R. (2017). “Rare place where I feel normal”: Perceptions of a social support conference among parents of and people with Moebius syndrome. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 64, 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2017.03.014
14.
BrannenJ. (2005). Mixing methods: The entry of qualitative and quantitative approaches into the research process. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(3), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570500154642
15.
*BransonD.DemchakM. (2011). Toddler teachers’ use of Teaching Pyramid practices. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 30(4), 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121410369184
16.
BrantlingerE.JimenezR.KlingnerJ.PugachM.RichardsonV. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100205
17.
*CaffreyE.FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2008). The predictive validity of dynamic assessment. The Journal of Special Education, 41(4), 254–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466907310366
18.
*CarterE. W.BoehmT. L.BiggsE. E.AnnandaleN. H.TaylorC. E.LoockA. K.LiuR. Y. (2015). Known for my strengths: Positive traits of transition-age youth with intellectual disability and/or autism. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 40(2), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/1540796915592158
19.
*Causton-TheoharisJ.TheoharisG.BullT.CosierM.Dempf-AldrichK. (2011). Schools of promise: A school district-university partnership centered on inclusive school reform. Remedial and Special Education, 32(3), 192–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932510366163
20.
ClarkeS.ZakszeskiB. N.KernL. (2018). Trends in JPBI publications, 1999-2016. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20(1), 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300717722359
21.
CohenL.ManionL.MorrisonK. (2000). Research methods in education (5th ed.). RoutledgeFalmer.
22.
CollinsK. M. T.OnwuegbuzieA. J.SuttonI. L. (2006). A model incorporating the rationale and purpose for conducting mixed-methods research in special education and beyond. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4(1), 67–100.
CookB. G.LloydJ. W.MellorD.NosekB. A.TherrienW. J. (2018). Promoting open science to increase the trustworthiness of evidence in special education. Exceptional Children, 85(1), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918793138
25.
CorrC.SnodgrassM. R.GreeneJ. C.MeadanH.SantosR. M. (2020). Mixed methods in early childhood special education research: Purposes, challenges, and guidance. Journal of Early Intervention, 42, 20–30.
26.
CreswellJ. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE.
27.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE.
28.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). SAGE.
*EdenK.Randle-PhillipsC. (2017). Exploration of body perception and body dissatisfaction in young adults with intellectual disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 71, 88–97. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2017.09.011
31.
FettersM. D. (2016). “Haven’t we always been doing mixed methods research?” Lessons learned from the development of the horseless carriage. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815620883
32.
*FeuerbornL. L.TyreA. D.BeaudoinK. (2018). Classified staff perceptions of behavior and discipline: Implications for schoolwide positive behavior supports. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 20(2), 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300717733975
33.
*FisherM. H.MorinL. (2017). Addressing social skills deficits in adults with Williams syndrome. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 71, 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2017.10.008
34.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2019). On the importance of moderator analysis in intervention research: An introduction to the special issue. Exceptional Children, 85(2), 126–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402918811924
35.
GerstenR.FuchsL. S.ComptonD.CoyneM.GreenwoodC.InnocentiM. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100202
36.
*GiangrecoM. F.BroerS. M.SuterJ. C. (2011). Guidelines for selecting alternatives to overreliance on paraprofessionals: Field-testing in inclusion-oriented schools. Remedial and Special Education, 32(1), 22–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932509355951
37.
GreeneJ. C. (2005). The generative potential of mixed methods inquiry. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 28(2), 207–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/01406720500256293
38.
GreeneJ. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. Jossey-Bass.
39.
GreeneJ. C.CaracelliV. J.GrahamW. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255
40.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. SAGE.
41.
*HarropC.TuN.LandaR.KaiserA.KasariC. (2018). Sensory behaviors in minimally verbal children with autism spectrum disorder: How and when do caregivers respond?American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 123(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1352/1944-7558-123.1.1
42.
HendrenK.LuoQ. E.PandeyS. K. (2018). The state of mixed methods research in public administration and public policy. Public Administration Review, 78(6), 904–916. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12981
43.
HeyvaertM.HannesK.MaesB.OnghenaP. (2013). Critical appraisal of mixed methods studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(4), 302–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689813479449
44.
*HodgettsS.SavageA.McConnellD. (2013). Experience and outcomes of Stepping Stones Triple P for families of children with autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(9), 2572–2585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2013.05.005
45.
HongJ. Y. (2010). Pre-service and beginning teachers’ professional identity and its relation to dropping out of the profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1530–1543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.003
46.
HornerR. H.CarrE. G.HalleJ.McGeeG.OdomS.WoleryM. (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100203
47.
*HowieE. K.CampbellA. C.AbbottR. A.StrakerL. M. (2017). Understanding why an active video game intervention did not improve motor skill and physical activity in children with developmental coordination disorder: A quantity or quality issue?Research in Developmental Disabilities, 60, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2016.10.013
48.
*HughesM.JoslynA.WojtonM.O’ReillyM.DworkinP. H. (2016). Connecting vulnerable children and families to community-based programs strengthens parents’ perceptions of protective factors. Infants & Young Children, 29(2), 116–129. https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0000000000000059
49.
*IaconoT.EvansE.DavisA.BhardwajA.TurnerB.TorrJ.TrollorJ. N. (2016). Family caring of older adults with intellectual disability and coping according to loci of responsibility. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 57, 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2016.07.004
50.
IvankovaN. V.KawamuraY. (2010). Emerging trends in the utilization of integrated designs in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods research (2nd ed., pp. 581–612). SAGE.
51.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
52.
*JonesJ. (2012). Factors associated with self-concept: Adolescents with intellectual and developmental disabilities share their perspectives. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 50(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-50.1.31
53.
Journal Citation Reports. (2016). Journal title ranked by impact factor. Report.
54.
*KingG.KingsnorthS.McPhersonA.Jones-GalleyK.PintoM.FellinM.. . .SavageD. (2016). Residential immersive life skills programs for youth with physical disabilities: A pilot study of program opportunities, intervention strategies, and youth experiences. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 55, 242–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2016.04.014
55.
KlingnerJ. K.BoardmanA. G. (2011). Addressing the “research gap” in special education through mixed methods. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34(3), 208–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948711417559
56.
*KramerJ. M.RoemerK.LijenquistK.ShinJ.HartS. (2014). Formative evaluation of project TEAM (teens making environment and activity modifications). Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 52(4), 258–272. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-52.4.258
LeechN. L.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2010). Guidelines for conducting and reporting mixed research in the field of counseling and beyond. Journal of Counseling & Development, 88(1), 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2010.tb00151.x
59.
*LeungC.LeungJ.LeungS.KarnilowiczW. (2019). Effectiveness of the Whole Inclusive School Empowerment (WISE) project in supporting preschool children with diverse learning needs. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 92, 103433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2019.103433
60.
*ManzP. H.GernhartA. L.BracalielloC. B.PressimoneV. J.EisenbergR. A. (2014). Preliminary development of the parent involvement in early learning scale for low-income families enrolled in a child-development-focused home visiting program. Journal of Early Intervention, 36(3), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815115573077
61.
*MarshallJ.CoulterM. L.GorskiP. A.EwingA. (2016). Parent recognition and responses to developmental concerns in young children. Infants & Young Children, 29(2), 102–115. https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0000000000000056
62.
*MatzenK.RyndakD.NakaoT. (2010). Middle school teams increasing access to general education for students with significant disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 31(4), 287–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932508327457
63.
MayhoJ.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2015). Toward a conceptualization of mixed methods phenomenological research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(1), 91–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689813505358
64.
*McIntoshK.PredyL. K.UpretiG.HumeA. E.TurriM. G.MathewsS. (2014). Perceptions of contextual features related to implementation and sustainability of school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 16(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300712470723
65.
McKimC. (2017). The value of mixed methods research: A mixed methods study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815607096
66.
MertensD. M. (2007). Mixed methods designs in evaluation. SAGE.
67.
*MissiunaC.PollockN.CampbellW. N.BennettS.HecimovichC.GainesR.. . .MolinaroE. (2012). Use of the medical research council framework to develop a complex intervention in pediatric occupational therapy: Assessing feasibility. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33(5), 1443–1452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2012.03.018
68.
*MullerE.CannonL. (2016). Parent perspectives on outcomes and satisfaction levels of young adults with autism and cognitive impairments. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 31(2), 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357614528800
69.
O’CathainA. (2010). Assessing the quality of mixed methods research: Toward a comprehensive framework. In TashakkoriA.TeddieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 531–555). SAGE.
70.
OdomS. L.BrantlingerE.GerstenR.HornerR. H.ThompsonB.HarrisK. R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 137–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100201
71.
*O’FarrellyC.LovettJ.GuerinS.DoyleO.VictoryG. (2017). Enhancing infant mental health using a capacity-building model: A case study of a process evaluation of the ready, steady, grow initiative. Infants & Young Children, 30(4), 269–287. https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0000000000000100
72.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.BustamanteR. M.NelsonJ. A. (2010). Mixed research as a tool for developing quantitative instruments. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 56–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689809355805
73.
*PetrenkoC. L. M.PandolfinoM. E. (2016). The association between parental attributions of misbehavior and parenting practices in caregivers raising children with prenatal alcohol exposure: A mixed-methods study. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 59, 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2016.09.005
74.
*ReidN.DaweS.HarnettP.SheltonD.HuttonL.O’CallaghanF. (2017). Feasibility study of a family-focused intervention to improve outcomes for children with FASD. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 67, 34–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2017.06.004
75.
*RichterM. M.LewisT. J.HagarJ. (2012). The relationship between principal leadership skills and school-wide positive behavior support: An exploratory study. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14(2), 69–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300711399097
76.
*RobertsonA. E.SimmonsD. R. (2016). The relationship between self-reported sensory experiences and autistic traits in the general population: A mixed methods analysis. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 33(3), 182–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357616667589
*SansostiF. J.LavikK. B.SansostiJ. M. (2012). Family experiences through the autism diagnostic process. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 27(2), 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088357612446860
79.
ShamseerL.MoherD.ClarkeM.GhersiD.LiberatiA.PetticrewM., . . . The PRISMA-P Group. (2015). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647
80.
SkrticT. M. (1995). The special education knowledge tradition: Crisis and opportunity. In MeyenE. L.SkrticT. M. (Eds.), Special education and student disability: An introduction. Traditional, emerging, and alternative perspectives (4th ed., pp. 609–674). Love.
81.
Slonim-NevoV.NevoI. (2009). Conflicting findings in mixed methods research: An illustration from an Israeli study on immigration. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(2), 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689808330621
SnodgrassM. R.ChungM. Y.MeadanH.HalleJ. W. (2018). Social validity in single-case research: A systematic literature review of prevalence and application. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 74, 160–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.01.007
84.
*SpassianiN. A.SawyerA. R.Abou ChacraM. S.KochK.MuñozY. A.LunksyY. (2016). “Teaches people that I’m more than a disability”: Using normal group technique in patient-oriented research for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities, 54(2), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-54.2.112
85.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds). (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. SAGE.
86.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral science. SAGE.
87.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2010). Overview of contemporary issues in mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 1–41). SAGE.
88.
ThompsonB.DiamondK. E.McWilliamR.SnyderP.SnyderS. W. (2005). Evaluating the quality of evidence from correlational research for evidence-based practice. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100204
89.
*WalbamK. M. (2019). Integrating connection: A mixed-methods exploration of sensory processing and attachment. Infants & Young Children, 32(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1097/IYC.0000000000000134
90.
*WangE. L.LeeE. (2019). The use of responsive circles in schools: An exploratory study. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 21(3), 181–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300718793428
91.
*WhiteS. W.EliasR.SalinasC. E.CapriolaN.ConnerC. M.AsselinS. B.. . .GetzelE. E. (2016). Students with autism spectrum disorder in college: Results from a preliminary mixed methods needs analysis. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 56, 29–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2016.05.010
92.
*WoodsL. L.MartinJ. E.HumphreyM. J. (2013). The difference a year makes: An exploratory self-directed IEP case study. Exceptionality, 21(3), 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2013.802233
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
