Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2023-10
Mixed Methods Community-Engaged Evaluation: Integrating Interventionist and Action Research Frameworks to Understand a Community-Building Violence Prevention Program
While mixed methods research can enhance studies of intervention outcomes and projects where research itself transforms communities through participatory approaches, methodologists need explicit examples. As the field of interpersonal violence prevention increasingly embraces community-level prevention strategies, it may benefit from research methods that mirror community-building prevention processes. A multiphase mixed methods study with sequential and convergent components assessed the feasibility, and impact of a prevention program to change social norms and increase collective efficacy in towns. Joint display analysis created a nuanced picture of the acceptability, feasibility, and impact of the program. This article contributes to the field of mixed methods research by bridging discussions of “interventionist” studies with models of community-based participatory mixed methods research into a combined community-engaged method.
AllanaS.ClarkA. (2018). Applying meta-theory to qualitative and mixed-methods research: A discussion of critical realism and heart failure disease management interventions research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 160940691879004. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918790042
2.
BadieeM.WangS. C.CreswellJ. W. (2012). Designing community-based mixed methods research. In NagataD. K.Kohn-WoodL.SuzukiL. A. (Eds.), Qualitative strategies for ethnocultural research (pp. 41–59). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13742-003
3.
BanyardV.EdwardsK. M.SieboldW. L. (2017). Involving community in sexual violence prevention: Engaging bystanders. In SturmeyP. (Ed.), The wiley handbook of violence and aggression. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119057574.whbva122
4.
BanyardV. L.RizzoA. J.EdwardsK. M. (2020). Community actionists: Understanding adult bystanders to sexual and domestic violence prevention in communities. Psychology of violence, 10(5), 531.
5.
BronfenbrennerU. (1992). Ecological systems theory. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
6.
BronsteinL. R.KovacsP. J. (2013). Writing a mixed methods report in social work research. Research on Social Work Practice, 23(3), 354–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731512471564
7.
CampbellR.ShawJ.GregoryK. A. (2017). Giving voice—and the numbers, too: Mixed methods research in community psychology. In BondM. A.Serrano-GarcíaI.KeysC. B.ShinnM. (Eds.) APA handbook of community psychology: Methods for community research and action for diverse groups and issues (pp. 139–153). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14954-009
8.
ChanW. Y.HollingsworthM. A.EspelageD. L.MitchellK. J. (2016). Preventing violence in context: The importance of culture for implementing systemic change. Psychology of Violence, 6(1), 22–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000021
9.
CokerA. L.Cook-CraigP. G.WilliamsC. M.FisherB. S.ClearE. R.GarciaL. S.HeggeL. M. (2011). Evaluation of green dot: An active bystander intervention to reduce sexual violence on college campuses. Violence Against Women, 17(6), 777–796. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801211410264
10.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Sage Publications.
11.
DavidovD.BushH. M.ClearE. R.CokerA. L. (2020). Using a multiphase mixed methods triangulation design to measure bystander intervention components and dose of violence prevention programs on college campuses. Journal of Family Violence, 35(6), 551–562. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-019-00108-5
12.
DeGueS.HoltM. K.MassettiG. M.MatjaskoJ. L.TharpA. T.ValleL. A. (2012). Looking ahead toward community-level strategies to prevent sexual violence. Journal of Women’s Health, 21(1), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2011.3263
13.
DeGueS.ValleL. A.HoltM. K.MassettiG. M.MatjaskoJ. L.TharpA. T. (2014). A systematic review of primary prevention strategies for sexual violence perpetration. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(4), 346–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.05.004
14.
DeJonckheereM.Lindquist-GrantzR.ToramanS.HaddadK.VaughnL. M. (2019). Intersection of mixed methods and community-based participatory research: A methodological review. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(4), 481–502. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689818778469
15.
DillmanD. A.SmythJ. D.ChristianL. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. John Wiley & Sons.
16.
DrabbleS. J.O'CathainA. (2015). Moving from randomized controlled trials to mixed methods intervention evaluations. In Hesse-BiberS.Burke JohnsonR. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 406–425). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199933624.013.26
FernetM.HébertM.ParadisA. (2016). Conflict resolution patterns and violence perpetration in adolescent couples: A gender-sensitive mixed-methods approach. Journal of Adolescence, 49(1), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.02.004
19.
FettersM. D.Molina-AzorinJ. F. (2020). Utilizing a mixed methods approach for conducting interventional evaluations. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(2), 131–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689820912856
20.
FettersM. D. (2019). The mixed methods research workbook: Activities for designing, implementing, and publishing projects. Sage Publications.
21.
FloodJ.MinklerM.Hennessey LaveryS.EstradaJ.FalbeJ. (2015). The collective impact model and its potential for health promotion: Overview and case study of a healthy retail initiative in San Francisco. Health Education & Behavior, 42(5), 654–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198115577372
22.
GoodmanL. A.EpsteinD.SullivanC. M. (2018). Beyond the RCT: Integrating rigor and relevance to evaluate the outcomes of domestic violence programs. American Journal of Evaluation, 39(1), 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214017721008
23.
HsiehH.-F.ShannonS. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
24.
IvankovaN.WingoN. (2018). Applying mixed methods in action research: Methodological potentials and advantages. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(7), 978–997. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218772673
25.
JohnsonR. B.SchoonenboomJ. (2016). Adding qualitative and mixed methods research to health intervention studies: Interacting with differences. Qualitative Health Research, 26(5), 587–602. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617479
26.
KimM. E. (2021). Shifting the lens: An implementation study of a community-based and social network intervention to gender-based violence. Violence Against Women, 27(2), 222–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219889176
27.
LazarusS.SeedatM.NaidooT. (2017). Community building: Challenges of constructing community. In BondM. A.Serrano-GarcíaI.KeysC. B.ShinnM. (Eds.), APA handbook of community psychology: Methods for community research and action for diverse groups and issues (pp. 215–234). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14954-013
28.
McCauleyH. L.CampbellR.BuchananN. T.MoylanC. A. (2019). Advancing theory, methods, and dissemination in sexual violence research to build a more equitable future: An intersectional, community-engaged approach. Violence against Women, 25(16), 1906–1931. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801219875823
29.
NeuendorfK. A. (2016). The content analysis guidebook. Sage Publications.
30.
Newton-LevinsonA.HigdonM.SalesJ.GaydosL.RochatR. (2020). Context matters: Using mixed methods timelines to provide an accessible and integrated visual for complex program evaluation data. Evaluation and Program Planning, 80, 101784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101784
31.
PalinkasL. A.CooperB. R. (2017). Mixed methods evaluation in dissemination and implementation science. In BrownsonR. C.ColditzG. A.ProctorE. K. (Eds.), Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice (pp. 335–353). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190683214.001.0001
32.
PattonM. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th Ed.). Sage Publications.
33.
PetersonC.KearnsM. C.McIntoshW. L.EstefanL. F.NicolaidisC.McCollisterK. E.GordonA.FlorenceC. (2018). Lifetime economic burden of intimate partner violence among US adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 55(4), 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2018.04.049
34.
R Core Team (2019). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.. https://www.R-project.org/
Shannon-BakerP.(2016). Making paradigms meaningful in mixed methods research. Journal of mixed methods research, 10(4), 319–334.
37.
SmithS. G.ZhangX.BasileK. C.MerrickM. T.WangJ.KresnowM.ChenJ. (2018). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2015 Data Brief - Updated Release. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
38.
StecklerA. B.LinnanL.IsraelB. (2002). Process evaluation for public health interventions and research. Jossey-Bass.
VaismoradiM.SnelgroveS. (2019). Theme in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis forum qualitative sozialforschung/forum: Qualitative social research. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 20(3). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-20.3.3376
41.
VaismoradiM.TurunenH.BondasT. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398–405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048
42.
WandersmanA.DuffyJ.FlaspohlerP.NoonanR.LubellK.StillmanL.BlachmanM.DunvilleR.SaulJ. (2008). Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: The interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3–4), 171–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9174-z
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.
