Quality criteria have been advanced for the mixed methods field, but the elements are often too numerous for new researchers, do not incorporate diverse perspectives (e.g., stakeholders and professional associations), and apply the criteria. This methodological article advances a shortlist of six criteria synthesized from diverse, recent sources. The six criteria are a rationale for mixed methods; quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods questions; separate quantitative and qualitative data; a mixed method design and a diagram; integration in a joint display; and meta-inferences. The shortlist, the diverse sources of information used in developing the list, and its application in an empirical study provide essential criteria for new scholars in the field of mixed methods research.
BrymanA. (2014). June 1989 and beyond: Julia Brannen’s contribution to mixed methods research. International Journal of Social Research Methods, 17(20), 121–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2014.892653
4.
CreswellJ. W. (2016). Application of recent innovations in mixed methods research procedures: How to develop a diagram of your mixed methods design.[Conference presentation]. In MMIRA 2016 International Conference, Durham, England, 6 August 2016.
5.
CreswellJ. W. (2020). Introduction to mixed methods research. [Workshop presentation]. City University of New Jersey.
6.
CreswellJ. W. (2022). A concise introduction to mixed methods research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publishing.
7.
CreswellJ. W.CreswellJ. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. (4th ed.) Sage Publishing.
8.
CreswellJ. W.GuettermanT. C. (2018). Educational research: Planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
9.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Sage.
10.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV L.GuttmannM. (2003). Advanced mixed method research designs. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods research in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Sage.
11.
DellingerA. B.LeechN. L. (2007). Toward a unified validation framework in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807306147
12.
FàbreguesS.Molina-AzorinJ. F. (2017). Addressing quality in mixed methods research: A review and recommendations for a future agenda. Quality and Quantity, 51(6), 2847–2863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0449-4
13.
FàbreguesS.Molina-AzorinJ. F.FettersM.D. (2021). Virtual special issue on “quality in mixed methods research”. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 15(2), 146–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898211001974
14.
FàbreguesS.ParéMHMenesesJ. (2019). Operationalizing and conceptualizing quality in mixed methods research: A multiple case study of the disciplines of education, nursing, psychology, and sociology. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(4), 424–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689817751774
15.
FettersM. D. (2020). The mixed methods research workbook: Activities for designing, implementing, and publishing projects. SAGE Publishing.
16.
FettersM. D.CurryL. A.CreswellJ. W. (2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs: Principles and practices. Human Services Research, 48(6), 2134–2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117
17.
FettersM. D.FreshwaterD. (2015). The 1 + 1 = 3 integration challenge. [Editorial]. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 9(2), 115–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815581222
18.
FettersM. D.Molina-AzorinJ. F. (2019a). A checklist of mixed methods elements in a submission for advancing the methodology of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(4), 414–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689819875832
19.
FettersM. D.Molina-AzorinJ. F. (2019b). New requirements to include the methodological contribution in articles published in the Journal of Mixed Methods Research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(2), 138–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689819834753
20.
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
21.
GuettermanT. C.FettersM. D.CreswellJ. W. (2015). Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. The Annals of Family Medicine, 13(6), 554–561. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1865
22.
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
23.
HiroseM. (2018). Evaluating a behavioral community support program for families with youth with developmental disorders: A mixed methods approach. A Doctoral Dissertation Completed at Kwansei Guikin University.
24.
HongQ. N.PluyeP. (2019). A conceptual framework for critical appraisal in systematic mixed studies reviews. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(4), 446–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818770058
25.
IvankovaN. V.CreswellJ. W.StickS. L. (2006). Using mixed methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822x05282260
26.
LevittH. M.BambergM.CreswellJ. W.FrostD. M.JosselsonR.Suárez-OrozcoC. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA publications and communications board task force report. American Psychologist, 73(1), 26–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000151
27.
NIH, Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences (2011). Best practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences. National Institutes of Health.
28.
NIH, Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences (2018). Best practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences (2nd ed.). National Institutes of Health.
29.
O′CathainA. (2018). A practical guide to using qualitative research with randomized controlled trials. Oxford University Press.
30.
O′CathainA.MurphyE.NichollJ. (2008). The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research Policy, 13(2), 92–98. https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007074
31.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.JohnsonR. B. (2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48–63.
32.
OnwuegbuzieA. J.PothC. (2016). Editors’ afterword: Toward evidence-based guidelines for reviewing mixed methods research manuscripts submitted to journals. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 15(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406916628986
33.
SatoT.MoriN.ValsinerJ. (2016). Making of the future: The trajectory equilfinality.approach in cultural psychology. Information Age Publishing.
SuwaMSuzukiK. (2013). The phenomenon of “hikikomori” (social withdrawal) and the socio-cultural situation in Japan today. Journal of Psychopathology, 19, 191–198.
36.
TashakkoriA.CreswellJ. W. (2007). Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research [Editorial]. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(3), 207–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689807302814
37.
TeddlieC.TashakkoriA. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage.
38.
TracyS. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837–851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121
39.
VenkateshV.BrownS. A.BrownS. A.BalaH. (2013). Bridging the qualitative-quantitative divide: Guidelines for conducting mixed methods research in information systems. MIS Quarterly, 37(1), 21–54. https://doi.org/10.25300/misq/2013/37.1.02
