Mixed methods single case research (MMSCR) is research in which single case experimental and qualitative case study methodologies, and their accompanying sets of methods and techniques, are integrated to answer research questions that concern a single case. This article discusses the historical roots and the distinct nature of MMSCR, the kinds of knowledge MMSCR produces, its philosophical underpinnings, examples of MMSCR, and the trustworthiness and validity of MMSCR. Methodological challenges relate to the development of a critical appraisal tool for MMSCR, to the team work that is involved in designing and conducting MMSCR studies, and to the application of mixed methods research synthesis for multiple case studies and single case experiments.
BarlowD. H.NockM. K.HersenM. (2009). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
2.
BiestaG. J. J. (2010). Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 95-118). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
BlaikieN. (2007). Approaches to social enquiry: Advancing knowledge. Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
4.
BowersB.CohenL. W.ElliotA. E.GrabowskiD. C.FishmanN. W.SharkeyS. S.. . . KemperP. (2013). Creating and supporting a mixed methods health services research team. Health Services Research, 48, 2157-2180. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12118
5.
BuckG.CookK.QuigleyC.EastwoodJ.LucasY. (2009). Profiles of urban, low SES, African American girls’ attitudes toward science: A sequential explanatory mixed methods study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(4), 386-410. doi:10.1177/1558689809341797
CampbellD. T. (1979). “Degrees of freedom” and the case study. In CookT. D.ReichartC. S. (Eds.), Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research (pp. 49-67). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
CreamerE. G. (2018). An introduction to fully integrated mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
10.
CreswellJ. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
CreswellJ. W. (2016). Reflections on the MMIRA The future of mixed methods task force report. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(3), 215-219. doi:10.1177/1558689816650298
12.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
CroweS.CresswellK.RobertsonA.HubyG.AveryA.SheikhA. (2011). The case study approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, 100. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-100
14.
CurryL. A.O’CathainA.ClarkV. L. P.AroniR.FettersM.BergD. (2012). The role of group dynamics in mixed methods health sciences research teams. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(1), 5-20. doi:10.1177/1558689811416941
15.
DattilioF. M.EdwardsD. J.FishmanD. B. (2010). Case studies within a mixed methods paradigm: Toward a resolution of the alienation between researcher and practitioner in psychotherapy research. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 47, 427-441. doi:10.1037/a0021181
16.
DonmoyerR. (1990). Generalizability and the single-case study. In EisnerE.PeshkinA. (Eds.), Qualitative inquiry in education: The continuing debate (pp. 175-200). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
17.
DoolinB. (2004). Power and resistance in the implementation of a medical management information system. Information Systems Journal, 14, 343-362. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2004.00176.x
18.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532-550. doi:10.5465/AMR.1989.4308385
19.
FeilzerM. Y. (2010). Doing mixed methods research pragmatically: Implications for the rediscovery of pragmatism as a research paradigm. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 6-16. doi:10.1177/1558689809349691
20.
FettersM. D.Molina-AzorinJ. F. (2017). The Journal of Mixed Methods Research starts a new decade: The mixed methods research integration trilogy and its dimensions. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(3), 291-307. doi:10.1177/1558689817714066
21.
FieldingN. G. (2012). Triangulation and mixed methods designs data integration with new research technologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 124-136. doi:10.1177/1558689812437101
22.
FlickU.Garms-HomolovaV.HerrmannW. J.KuckJ.RöhnschG. (2012). “I can’t prescribe something just because someone asks for it . . . ”: Using mixed methods in the framework of triangulation. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 97-110. doi:10.1177/1558689812437183
23.
GannottiM. E.GortonG. E.NahorniakM. T.MassoP. D. (2013). Gait and participation outcomes in adults with cerebral palsy: A series of case studies using mixed methods. Disability and Health Journal, 6, 244-252. doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2013.01.013
24.
GastD. L.LedfordJ. R. (Eds.). (2014). Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
25.
GastonL.MarmarC. R. (1989). Quantitative and qualitative analyses for psychotherapy research: Integration through time-series designs. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 26, 169-176. doi:10.1037/h0085416
26.
GubaE. G.LincolnY. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In DenzinN. K.LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191-215). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
HannesK.LockwoodC.PearsonA. (2010). A comparative analysis of three online appraisal instruments’ ability to assess validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 20, 1736-1743. doi:10.1177/1049732310378656
28.
HayM. C. (Ed.). (2016). Methods that matter: Integrating mixed methods for more effective social science research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29.
Hesse-BiberS. N. (2010a). Feminist approaches to mixed methods research: Linking theory and praxis. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 169-192). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
Hesse-BiberS. N. (2010b). Mixed methods research: Merging theory with practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
31.
Hesse-BiberS. N. (2012). Feminist approaches to triangulation: Uncovering subjugated knowledge and fostering social change in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 137-146. doi:10.1177/1558689812437184
32.
HeyvaertM.HannesK.MaesB.OnghenaP. (2013). Critical appraisal of mixed methods studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 7(4), 302-327. doi:10.1177/1558689813479449
33.
HeyvaertM.HannesK.OnghenaP. (2017). Using mixed methods research synthesis for literature reviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
HeyvaertM.KuppensS.MaesB.OnghenaP. (2010, April30-May4). Mixed methods integration of single-case experiments and case study research: An exploration of possibilities. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), Denver, CO, USA.
35.
HeyvaertM.MaesB.OnghenaP. (2013). Mixed methods research synthesis: Definition, framework, and potential. Quality & Quantity, 47, 659-676. doi:10.1007/s11135-011-9538-6
36.
HeyvaertM.MoeyaertM.VerkempynckP.Van den NoortgateW.VervloetM.UgilleM.OnghenaP. (2017). Testing the intervention effect in single-case experiments: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Journal of Experimental Education, 85, 175-196. doi:10.1080/00220973.2015.1123667
37.
HeyvaertM.SaenenL.MaesB.OnghenaP. (2014). Systematic review of restraint interventions for challenging behaviour among persons with intellectual disabilities: Focus on effectiveness in single-case experiments. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 27, 493-510. doi:10.1111/jar.12094
38.
HeyvaertM.SaenenL.MaesB.OnghenaP. (2015). Systematic review of restraint interventions for challenging behaviour among persons with intellectual disabilities: Focus on experiences. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 28, 61-80. doi:10.1111/jar.12095
39.
HeyvaertM.WendtO.Van den NoortgateW.OnghenaP. (2015). Randomization and data-analysis items in quality standards for single-case experimental studies. Journal of Special Education, 49, 146-156. doi:10.1177/0022466914525239
40.
HitchcockJ. H.NastasiB. K.SummervilleM. (2010). Single-case designs and qualitative methods: Applying a mixed methods research perspective. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 23(2), 49-58.
41.
HodgkinS. (2008). Telling it all. A story of women’s social capital using a mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2, 296-316. doi:10.1177/1558689808321641
42.
HowardG. S. (1983). Toward methodological pluralism. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 19-21. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.30.1.19
43.
IvankovaN. V.CreswellJ. W.StickS. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18, 3-20. doi:10.1177/1525822X05282260
44.
JohnsonR. B.OnwuegbuzieA. J.TurnerL. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133. doi:10.1177/1558689806298224
45.
KatsulisY. (2009). Sex work and the city: The social geography of health and safety in Tijuana, Mexico. Austin: University of Texas Press.
46.
KazdinA. E. (1977). Assessing the clinical or applied importance of behavior change through social validation. Behavior Modification, 1, 427-452. doi:10.1177/014544557714001
47.
KazdinA. E. (1981). Drawing valid inferences from case studies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 183-192. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.49.2.183
48.
KazdinA. E. (1999). The meanings and measurement of clinical significance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 332-339. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.67.3.332
49.
KazdinA. E. (2011). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
50.
KellettS.HardyG. (2014). Treatment of paranoid personality disorder with cognitive analytic therapy: A mixed methods single case experimental design. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 21, 452-464. doi:10.1002/cpp.1845
51.
KieslerD. J. (1973). The process of psychotherapy: Empirical foundations and systems of analysis. Chicago, IL: Aldine.
52.
KirkR. E. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 746-759. doi:10.1177/0013164496056005002
53.
KitchenhamA. D. (2010). Mixed methods in case study research. In MillsA. J.DureposG.WiebeE. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of case study research (pp. 562-564). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781412957397.n208
54.
KratochwillT. R.HitchcockJ.HornerR. H.LevinJ. R.OdomS. L.RindskopfD. M.ShadishW. R. (2010). Single-case designs technical documentation. Washington, DC: What Works Clearinghouse, Institute of Education Sciences.
55.
KratochwillT. R.HitchcockJ. H.HornerR. H.LevinJ. R.OdomS. L.RindskopfD. M.ShadishW. R. (2013). Single-case intervention research design standards. Remedial and Special Education, 34, 26-38. doi:10.1177/0741932512452794
56.
KulkarniP. (2012). Role of multilingualism in cognitive development. Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute, 72, 475-480.
57.
KuppensS.HeyvaertM.Van den NoortgateW.OnghenaP. (2011). Sequential meta-analysis of single-case experimental data. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 720-729. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0080-1
58.
LeechN. L.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity, 43, 265-275. doi:10.1007/s11135-007-9105-3
59.
LincolnY. S.GubaE. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
60.
MaltsevaK. (2016). Using correspondence analysis of scales as part of mixed methods design to access cultural models in ethnographic fieldwork: Prosocial cooperation in Sweden. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(1), 82-111. doi:10.1177/1558689814525262
61.
ManolovR.OnghenaP. (2017). Analyzing data from single-case alternating treatments designs. Psychological Methods. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/met0000133
62.
MaysN.PopeC. (2000). Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research. British Medical Journal, 320, 50-52.
63.
MaxwellJ. A. (2016). Expanding the history and range of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(1), 12-27. doi:10.1177/1558689815571132
64.
MaxwellJ. A.ChmielM.RogersS. (2015). Designing integration in mixed method and multi-method research. In Hesse-BiberS.JohnsonR. B. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 223-239). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
65.
MaxwellJ. A.LoomisD. (2003). Mixed methods design: An alternative approach. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 241-271). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
66.
MaxwellJ. A.MittapalliK. (2010). Realism as a stance for mixed method research. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 145-167). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
67.
MerriamS. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
68.
MertensD. M. (2007). Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 212-225. doi:10.1177/1558689807302811
69.
MertensD. M. (2012). What comes first? The paradigm or the approach?Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(4), 255-257. doi:10.1177/1558689812461574
70.
MertensD. M.BazeleyP.BowlegL.FieldingN.MaxwellJ.Molina-AzorinJ. F.NiglasK. (2016). Expanding thinking through a kaleidoscopic look into the future: Implications of the Mixed Methods International Research Association’s task force report on the future of mixed methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 10(3), 221-227. doi:10.1177/1558689816649719
71.
MertensD. M.BledsoeK. L.SullivanM.WilsonA. (2010). Utilization of mixed methods for transformative purposes. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 193-214). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
72.
MorganD. L. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 48-76. doi:10.1177/2345678906292462
73.
MorseJ. M.BarrettM.MayanM.OlsonK.SpiersJ. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1, 13-22. doi:10.1177/160940690200100202
74.
NastasiB. K.HitchcockJ. H.BrownL. M. (2010). An inclusive framework for conceptualizing mixed methods design typologies: Moving toward fully integrated synergistic research methods. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 305-338). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
75.
NastasiB. K.SchensulS. L. (2005). Contributions of qualitative research to the validity of intervention research. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 177-195.
76.
NightingaleA. (2006). The nature of gender: Work, gender, and environment. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 24, 165-185. doi:10.1068/d01k
77.
O’CathainA. (2010). Assessing the quality of mixed methods research: Towards a comprehensive framework. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed., pp. 531-555). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
78.
O’CathainA.MurphyE.NichollJ. P. (2008). Dysfunctional, multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary? Team working in mixed methods research. Qualitative Health Research, 18, 1574-1585. doi:10.1111/1475-6773.12118
79.
O’NeillB. (2009). The gender gap: Re-evaluating theory and method. In PeterboroughS. (Ed.), Changing methods: Feminists reflect on practice (pp. 327-355). Peterborough, Ontario, Canada: Broadview Press.
80.
OnghenaP.EdgingtonE. S. (1994). Randomization tests for restricted alternating treatments designs. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 32, 783-786. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(94)90036-1
81.
OrmerodR. (2006). The history and ideas of pragmatism. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57, 892-909. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602065
82.
PearsonA.WiechulaR.CourtA.LockwoodC. (2005). The JBI model of evidence-based healthcare. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, 3, 207-215. doi:10.1111/j.1479-6988.2005.00026.x
83.
PerdicesM.TateR. L. (2009). Single-subject designs as a tool for evidence-based clinical practice: Are they unrecognised and undervalued?Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 19, 904-927. doi:10.1080/09602010903040691
84.
Plano ClarkV. L.IvankovaN. V. (2016). Mixed methods research: A guide to the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
85.
PluyeP.GagnonM. P.GriffithsF.Johnson-LafleurJ. (2009). A scoring system for appraising mixed methods research, and concomitantly appraising qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods primary studies in mixed studies reviews. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46, 529-546. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.01.009
86.
RiedelS. (2005). Edward Jenner and the history of smallpox and vaccination. Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, 18, 21-25.
87.
ShadishW. R. (2014a). Analysis and meta-analysis of single-case designs: An introduction. Journal of School Psychology, 52, 109-122. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2013.11.009
88.
ShadishW. R. (2014b). Statistical analyses of single-case designs: The shape of things to come. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 139-146. doi:10.1177/0963721414524773
89.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
90.
ShadishW. R.KyseE. N.RindskopfD. M. (2013). Analyzing data from single-case designs using multilevel models: New applications and some agenda items for future research. Psychological Methods, 18, 385-405. doi:10.1037/a0032964
91.
ShamseerL.SampsonM.BukutuC.SchmidC. H.NiklesJ.TateR., . . . the CENT group (2015). CONSORT extension for reporting N-of-1 trials (CENT) 2015: Explanation and elaboration. British Medical Journal, 350, h1793. doi:10.1136/bmj/h1793
92.
SmithJ. D. (2012). Single-case experimental designs: A systematic review of published research and current standards. Psychological Methods, 17, 510-550. doi:10.1037/a0029312
93.
StakeR. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
94.
StakeR. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
95.
StruppH. H. (1980a). Success and failure in time-limited psychotherapy: A systematic comparison of two cases (Comparison 1). Archives of General Psychiatry, 37, 595-603. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1980.01780180109014
96.
StruppH. H. (1980b). Success and failure in time-limited psychotherapy: A systematic comparison of two cases (Comparison 2). Archives of General Psychiatry, 37, 708-716. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1980.01780190106013
97.
StruppH. H. (1980c). Success and failure in time-limited psychotherapy: Further evidence (Comparison 4). Archives of General Psychiatry, 37, 947-954. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1980.01780210105011
98.
StruppH. H. (1980d). Success and failure in time-limited psychotherapy: With special reference to the performance of a lay counselor (Comparison 3). Archives of General Psychiatry, 37, 831-841. doi:10.1001/archpsyc.1980.01780200109014
99.
StruppH. H. (1990). The case of Helen R: A therapeutic failure?Psychotherapy, 27, 644-656. doi:10.1037/0033-3204.27.4.644
100.
SwanbornP. (2010). Case study research: What, why and how?London, England: Sage.
101.
TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.). (2010). SAGE handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
102.
TateR. L.McDonaldS.PerdicesM.TogherL.SchultzR.SavageS. (2008). Rating the methodological quality of single-subject designs and n-of-1 trials: Introducing the Single-Case Experimental Design (SCED) Scale. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 18, 385-401. doi:10.1080/09602010802009201
103.
TateR. L.PerdicesM.RosenkoetterU.McDonaldS.TogherL.ShadishW.. . . VohraS. (2016a). The single-case reporting guideline in BEhavioural Interventions (SCRIBE) 2016: Explanation and elaboration. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 4, 10-31. doi:10.1037/arc0000027
104.
TateR. L.PerdicesM.RosenkoetterU.ShadishW.VohraS.BarlowD. H.. . . WilsonB. (2016b). The single-case reporting guideline in BEhavioural interventions (SCRIBE) 2016 statement. Archives of Scientific Psychology, 4, 1-9. doi:10.1037/arc0000026
105.
TateR. L.PerdicesM.RosenkoetterU.WakimD.GodbeeK.TogherL.McDonaldS. (2013). Revision of a method quality rating scale for single-case experimental designs and n-of-1 trials: The 15-item Risk of Bias in N-of-1 Trials (RoBiNT) Scale. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 23, 619-638. doi:10.1080/09602011.2013.824383
ThompsonB. (2002). “Statistical,”“practical,” and “clinical”: How many kinds of significance do counselors need to consider?Journal of Counseling & Development, 80, 64-71.
108.
TorranceH. (2012). Triangulation, respondent validation, and democratic participation in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 111-123. doi:10.1177/1558689812437185
109.
Van NessP. H.MurphyT. E.AliA. (2017). Attention to individuals: Mixed methods for n-of-1 health care interventions. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(3), 342-354. doi:10.1177/1558689815623685
110.
VikströmL. (2010). Identifying dissonant and complementary data on women through the triangulation of historical sources. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 13, 211-221. doi:10.1080/13645579.2010.482257
111.
VohraS.ShamseerL.SampsonM.BukutuC.SchmidC. H.TateR., . . . the CENT group (2015). CONSORT extension for reporting N-of-1 trials (CENT) 2015 Statement. British Medical Journal, 350, h1738. doi:10.1136/bmj/h1738
112.
WeisnerT. S. (Ed.). (2005). Discovering successful pathways in children’s development: Mixed methods in the study of childhood and family life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
113.
YinR. K. (2006). Mixed methods research: Are the methods genuinely integrated or merely parallel?Research in the Schools, 13, 41-47.
114.
YinR. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
115.
YinR. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
116.
ZhanS.OttenbacherK. J. (2001). Single subject research designs for disability research. Disability and Rehabilitation, 23, 1-8. doi:10.1080/09638280150211202
