Mixed-method designs increasingly are being used to investigate multi-faceted educational phenomena, but many conceptual and practical challenges remain in combining qualitative and quantitative methods. This paper addresses the conceptual issues by illustrating how 2 analytic approaches were used for different mixed-method purposes in the study of preschool inclusion. Using family and classroom studies as examples, the paper describes practical strategies for conducting mixed-method data analysis in terms of data reduction, transformation, comparison, and interpretation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arndorfer, R.E., Miltenberger, R.G., Woster, S.H., Rortvedt, A.K., & Gaffaney, T. (1994). Home-based descriptive and experimental analysis of problem behaviors in children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 14, 64-87.
2.
Asher, S.R., Singleton, L.C., Tinsley, B.R., & Hymel, S. (1979). A reliable sociometric measure for preschool children . Developmental Psychology, 15, 443-444.
3.
Bernheimer, L.P., Gallimore, R., & Kaufman, S.Z. (1993). Clinical child assessment in a family context: A four-group typology of family experiences with young children with developmental delays. Journal of Early Intervention, 17, 253-269
4.
Brown, W.H., Favazza, P.C., & Odom, S.L. (1995). Code for Active Student Participation and Engagement Revised (CASPER II): A training manual for observers. Unpublished observer training manual. Nashville, TN: Early Childhood Research Institute on Inclusion, Vanderbilt University.
5.
Buysse, V. (1993). Friendships of preschoolers with disabilities in community settings. Journal of Early Intervention, 17, 380-395.
6.
Buysse, V., Wesley, P., Keyes, L., & Bailey, D. (1996). Assessing the comfort zone of child care teachers in serving young children with disabilities. Journal of Early Intervention, 20, 189-203.
7.
Capone, M., & Divenere, N. (1996). The evaluation of a personnel preparation program: Preparation of family-centered practitioners. Journal of Early Intervention, 20, 222-231.
8.
Denzin, N.K. (1978). The research act: An introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw Hill.
9.
Firestone, W. (1987). Meaning in method: The rhetoric of quantitative and qualitative research. Educational Researcher, 16(7), 16-21.
10.
Gage, N.L. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A "historical" sketch of research on teaching since 1989. Teachers College Record, 91, 135-150.
11.
Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J., & Graham, W.F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 11, 255-274.
12.
Guba, E.G. ( 1990). The paradigm dialog. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13.
House, E.R. (1990). Trends in evaluation. Educational Researcher, 19(3), 24-28.
14.
Kidder, L.H. & Fine, M. (1987). Qualitative and quantitative methods: When stories converge. In M. M. Mark & R. L. Shotland (Eds.), Multiple methods in program evaluation: New directions for program evaluation35 (pp.57-75). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
15.
Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
16.
McWilliam, R.A. (1991). Mixed-method research in special education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED357554)
17.
McWilliam, R.A., Lang, L., Vandiviere, P., Angell, R., Collins, L., & Underdown, G. (1995). Satisfaction and struggles: Family perceptions of early intervention services. Journal of Early Intervention , 19, 43-60.
18.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded source book. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Odom, S.L., Horn, E.M., Marquart, J.M., Hanson, M.J., Wolfberg, P., Beckman, P., Lieber, J., Li, S., Schwartz, I., Janko, S., & Sandall, S. (1999). On the forms of inclusion: Organizational context and individualized service models. Journal of Early Intervention , 22, 185-199.
21.
Odom, S.L., & Shuster, S.K. (1986). Naturalistic inquiry and the assessment of young handicapped children and their families. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 6, 68-82.
22.
Peck, C.A., Carlson, P., & Helmstetter, E. (1992). Parent and teacher perceptions of outcomes for typically developing children enrolled in integrated early childhood programs: A statewide survey. Journal of Early Intervention , 16, 53-63.
23.
Peck, C.A. & Furman, G.C. (1990). Qualitative research in special education: An evaluative review. In R. Gaylord-Ross (Ed.), Issues and research in special education, Vol. 2 (pp. 1-42). New York: Teachers College Press.
24.
Reichardt, C.S. & Cook, T.D. (1979). Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods . In T. D. Cook & C. S. Reichardt (Eds.), Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research (pp.7-32). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
25.
Rossman, G.B., & Wilson, B.L. ( 1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9, 627-643.
26.
Schwartz, I.S., & Olswang, L.B. (1996). Evaluating child behavior change in natural settings: Exploring alternative strategies for data collection. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 16, 82-101.
27.
Smith, J.K. (1983). Quantitative versus qualitative: An attempt to clarify the issue. Educational Researcher, 12(1), 6-13.
28.
Smith, J.K. & Heshusius, L. (1986). Closing down the conversation: The end of the quantitative-qualitative debate. Educational Researcher, 15(1), 4-12.
29.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
30.
Tapp, J., Wehby, J., & Ellis, D. (1995). A multiple option observation system for experimental studies (MOOSES). Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 27, 25-31.
31.
Wesley, P.W., & Buysse, V. (1996). Supporting early childhood inclusion: Lessons learned through a statewide technical assistance project. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 16, 476-499.
