Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Although integration is a crucial element of mixed methods research (MMR), most MMR quality frameworks have not comprehensively addressed integration in their criteria. These frameworks tend to focus on whether integration is present, without considering important aspects such as the rigor of the integration processes used or their consistency with the other components of the MMR study. This paper presents the Mixed Methods Integration Quality Framework (MMIQF), which was developed based on a methodological review of the literature on integration in MMR. The proposed framework is intended to be useful to authors and readers of MMR studies who wish to ensure and appraise the appropriate implementation of integration in the design, conduct, and reporting of MMR studies.

Keywords

integration quality framework criteria

Introduction

Integration is a fundamental feature of mixed methods research (MMR) that distinguishes this type of research from quantitative and qualitative monomethod research (Guetterman et al., 2020). Integration refers to the intentional mixing of quantitative and qualitative approaches throughout the MMR study to generate new insights or a more comprehensive understanding of the phenomena of interest (Fetters, 2020; Fetters & Molina-Azorin, 2017). Therefore, as emphasized by Bazeley (2018), integration leads to a state of “purposeful interdependence” or “mutual illumination” between the two approaches, which ultimately results in an added value that would not be possible with quantitative and qualitative methods alone. The added value of using MMR can manifest in different ways depending on the type of design used and the timing of the integration. For example, integration during the interpretation phase of a convergent design may result in a set of meta-inferences—the integrated conclusions drawn from considering together the individual inferences of the quantitative and qualitative components—whereas integration during the data collection phase of a sequential exploratory design may result in the creation or modification of the questionnaire.

Despite the importance of integration, it is only over the last decade that scholars have begun to explore and discuss its conceptualization and operationalization in greater depth and with a more explicit focus. As argued by Fetters (2020, p. 176), “well into the early 2000s, effective integration in mixed methods studies lagged behind other aspects of mixed methods developments.” Contemporary literature on this topic includes theoretical discussions of integration (Lynam et al., 2020; Uprichard & Dawney, 2019), strategies and procedures for effectively implementing integration (Fetters et al., 2013; Guetterman et al., 2015; Younas & Durante, 2023), and examples of novel ways to implement integration (Alexander et al., 2021; Haynes-Brown & Fetters, 2021). This literature has helped to elucidate the integration process by providing a thorough examination of its underlying principles and explicit guidance on its practical implementation. In addition, it has emphasized the importance of integration across all dimensions of the study, underscoring the need to incorporate integration from the early stages of study planning and throughout the subsequent phases. This literature is significant because several methodological reviews (Fàbregues et al., 2022; Morgan, 2023; Steinmetz-Wood et al., 2019; Younas et al., 2019) have highlighted a lack of integration in MMR studies across disciplines. Some issues noted by these reviews include the lack of explicit statements about the link between the quantitative and qualitative results, the absence of meta-inferences, or the failure to consider the added value of integrating the two datasets.

In parallel with the discourse on integration, scholars have addressed the issue of quality in MMR, mainly since the mid-2000s, through the development of several quality frameworks and criteria (Fàbregues & Molina-Azorín, 2017). These frameworks have been based on different perspectives on quality and have addressed different objectives, such as identifying threats to MMR quality in the conduct of studies (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006), evaluating completed MMR studies (Creamer, 2018; Harrison et al., 2020), and critically appraising MMR studies included in systematic reviews (Hong et al., 2019). The development of MMR quality criteria has been a valuable addition to the field, helping researchers to properly design, conduct, and report their MMR studies. In addition, it has contributed to establish MMR as a distinctive methodology in its own right, highlighting the need for a specific approach to appraise the unique features of the methodology, such as integration (Fàbregues et al., 2021).

However, the existing literature on quality and integration in MMR is relatively separate. With a few exceptions (Onwuegbuzie & Johnson, 2006; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2008), the quality frameworks in the MMR literature are predominantly general in nature and do not comprehensively address the concept of integration (Sligo et al., 2018). These frameworks focus primarily on detecting evidence of integration or assessing the extent of integration, but do not provide sufficient detail on more specific elements, such as how integration is performed, the strategies used for integration, the generation of meta-inferences, and the reporting of integration results. Moreover, the few frameworks that provide some specificity, including Onwuegbuzie and Johnson (2006) and Tashakkori and Teddlie (2008), do not encompass contemporary advances in MMR integration, as they were published more than 15 years ago. This aspect is problematic, given the central role of integration in MMR and the consistent failure of many published MMR studies to meet the minimum standards of integration.

To fill this gap, in this paper, we report the development of an initial version of a comprehensive framework of quality criteria for appraising the design, implementation, and reporting of the integration process and results in MMR. Based on a systematic methodological review of the literature on integration in MMR, the framework is intended to be useful to authors seeking to ensure appropriate integration of the quantitative and qualitative components in designing, conducting, and reporting MMR studies. In addition, it may be valuable for readers and reviewers of MMR manuscripts to assess whether the full potential of MMR integration has been realized.

Methods

Search Strategy and Screening

To develop this framework, we conducted a methodological review of the literature on MMR integration. First, the CINAHL, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched for methodological literature on MMR integration. The search was initially conducted in November 2023 and updated in February 2024. The search criteria included all types of publications published since 2010 with the term “mixed method*” along with either the term “integrat*” or “meta-inference*”/“metainference*” in the Title field. The decision to limit the search to publications published since 2010 was based on the observation that most of the literature explicitly describing the MMR integration process had been published since that date, as noted by Fetters (2020). This electronic search was supplemented by four complementary hand searches of (a) methodological journals, including the Journal of Mixed Methods Research, International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, Quality and Quantity, International Journal of Qualitative Methods, and International Journal of Social Research Methodology; (b) books on MMR; (c) frameworks for appraising the methodological and reporting quality of MMR; and (d) other papers identified in the reference lists of the previously identified sources. The screening and eligibility process for the identified records was performed independently by two authors, according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria listed in Table 1. Any disagreements among the authors were resolved by consensus.

Table 1.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria.

Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
⁃ Theoretical/methodological article, empirical/methodological article, editorial, commentary, book, book chapter, or conference proceeding.	⁃ Book reviews or empirical papers without a predominant methodological approach.
⁃ Contains one or more explicit or implicit mentions of integration quality.	⁃ No mentions of integration quality.
⁃ Follows the definition of MMR by Creswell and Tashakkori (2007) and/or Johnson & Onwuegbuzie (2007).	⁃ Not in English.
⁃ Published in English.	Published before 2010.
⁃ Published in 2010 or after.

Note. MMR = Mixed methods research.

Analysis

The identification and synthesis of the quality criteria in the included records were carried out through inductive content analysis (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008) using MAXQDA 24. The analysis was conducted in three phases. In the first phase, open coding was used to code explicit and implicit mentions of integration quality criteria or indicators in the included records, with notes taken to capture nuances or particular interpretations of these criteria. The lead author conducted the open coding, which was then reviewed by another author. In the second phase, the list of criteria identified in the first phase was reduced by collapsing similar or redundant criteria and removing those that were superfluous or ambiguous through an iterative comparison process. In the third phase, the final list of criteria was logically organized into broader dimensions, consistent with the MMR research process. The final set of criteria was reviewed by the five authors, each with experience in conducting and reviewing MMR studies, to ensure their understanding, clarity, usability, and relevance.

Results

Search Results

The search process yielded 782 records after removing duplicates, including both the database and hand searches. Of these, 556 records were removed during the screening phase by reading titles and abstracts. During the eligibility phase, 81 records were removed after a full-text assessment and 10 records could not be retrieved. Reasons for exclusion during the eligibility phase included failure to mention integration quality criteria, being a book review, or being in a language other than English. Book chapters identified in the databases that were part of an edited book identified in the supplemental search were also excluded. As a result of the screening process, 135 records were selected for review. These records included 96 journal articles, 24 books, seven edited books, five book chapters (not included in the identified edited books), two technical reports, and one conference proceedings. In the case of books and edited books, only the sections or chapters focusing on integration were coded. In terms of publication year, 25 records were published between 2010 and 2014, 50 between 2015 and 2019, and 60 from 2020 onwards. The selection flowchart and the full list of included references, which represent a comprehensive compilation of the contemporary literature on integration, can be found in the Supplemental File.

Mixed Methods Integration Quality Framework

The Mixed Methods Integration Quality Framework (MMIQF) was developed following an inductive content analysis of the 135 included records. The MMIQF consists of 44 criteria organized into four broad domains representing the MMR research process: (a) planning, data collection, and analysis, (b) interpretation, (c) general reporting, and (d) joint displays. Joint displays are visual tools that facilitate the implementation and reporting of integration throughout all phases of an MMR study (Younas & Durante, 2023). Given their growing adoption in the MMR empirical literature and the specific quality criteria that guide their development, we have included them as a separate dimension in our framework. However, these criteria should be considered optional, as joint displays are not a prerequisite for integration. Inspired by Plano Clark et al. (2022), the four domains are further divided into two sets of questions: those that authors should consider during the conduct of their studies, and those that authors and readers should ask after the MMR study is completed. The first set of questions addresses issues that are part of the process of planning and conducting the study and therefore are not always explicitly visible, while the second set includes issues that are likely to be identified in a publication. The MMIQF is shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Mixed Methods Integration Quality Framework (MMIQF).

No. Criteria	Question(s)
Domain 1: Planning, data collection, and analysis
Questions for authors to ask
1	Is integration conceptualized as a process (i.e., the steps to be taken throughout the study) and a product (i.e., the outcome of the study)?
2	Is an integration strategy¹ planned at the beginning of the study?
3	Is a procedural diagram developed to support planning of how the entire MMR study will be conducted, including the integration strategy?
4	Is the feasibility of the integration strategy assessed based on available resources, including time and people?
5	Is the possibility of using a theoretical or conceptual framework to guide the integration strategy considered?
6	Are potential threats to realize the integration, such as merging results from samples of different sizes or other study-specific threats, anticipated?
7	If appropriate, will members of the research team with different methodological and substantive expertise collaborate in performing the integration?
8	Where possible and appropriate, will an MMR sampling strategy (i.e., identical, parallel, nested, and multi-level) be used to facilitate the integration?
Questions for authors/readers to ask
9	Is the integration strategy coherent with the MMR design?
10	Have quantitative and qualitative fieldwork and analyses been designed and implemented in a way that promotes interdependence?
11	If applicable, has a new substantively relevant data collection instrument or sample been created as a result of the integration during data collection?
Domain 2: Interpretation
Questions for authors to ask
12	Are new meta-inferences generated by bringing together the quantitative and qualitative results/inferences and determining the nature of their relationship, whether it is convergence, divergence, complementarity, or expansion?
13	Are alternative explanations considered to ensure the credibility of meta-inferences?
14	Is care taken to avoid oversimplification when generating meta-inferences?
15	Is there likely to be agreement among different researchers on the interpretation of the meta-inferences?
16	Are meta-inferences transferable and applicable to other people, contexts, or situations?
Questions for authors/readers to ask
17	Are meta-inferences aligned with and able to answer the MMR research question?
18	Are meta-inferences coherent with the results/inferences of the quantitative and qualitative components?
19	Are meta-inferences coherent with the other meta-inferences?
20	Are meta-inferences coherent with the literature and the theoretical framework of the study?
21	In cases where there are discrepancies between the quantitative and qualitative results/inferences, have they been examined, and have any strategies been employed to address them?
Domain 3: General reporting
Questions for authors/readers to ask
22	Has an MMR research question been formulated that outlines the purpose of the integration?
23	Has a detailed description of the integration strategy been provided?
24	Is a procedural diagram included that illustrates the integration strategy?
25	Is the synergy between the two components evident in the description of the methods and the presentation of the integrated results and conclusions?
26	Are the results of the integration, including meta-inferences, described in narrative form, preferably together with a joint display?
27	Are the insights and added value of the integration described and how they enabled the MMR question to be answered?
28	Are contemporary terms used and key references used to describe the integration strategy?
29	Are limitations or barriers described that may have prevented further integration?
Domain 4: Joint displays
Questions for authors to ask
30	Is consideration being given to using the JD as a resource for the iterative development of the integration process throughout the study, and not just a tool for representing the integrated results?
31	Is the possibility of using the literature or a theoretical framework to organize the JD considered?
32	If multiple JDs are being developed, is the possibility of combining them into a single JD considered, if such a combination allows for a summary of integration?
33	Is the possibility of using visual resources (e.g., bar charts, box plots, images, maps, etc.) in the JD considered, if such resources enhance the clarity of reporting on the integration process and results compared to a non-visual joint display?
34	Is the possibility of using qualitative software to assist in the development of the JD considered?
Questions for authors/readers to ask
35	If appropriate, are one or more JDs included that present the results of the integration at the planning and data collection stages?
36	Are one or more JDs included that present the results of the integration at the interpretation stage?
37	Is the JD coherent with the nature of the MMR design and the integration strategy?
38	Are the quantitative and qualitative results/inferences clearly identified in the JD?
39	When using a side-by-side joint display, are the quantitative and qualitative data sources aligned for the same constructs and presented at the same level of aggregation (i.e., instruments, raw data, or inferences)?
40	Does the JD include the meta-inferences if integration occurs during the interpretation phase?
41	If visual resources (e.g., bar charts, box plots, images, maps, etc.) are used, do they facilitate the interpretation of the JD compared to a non-visual joint display?
42	Is the JD self-explanatory?
43	Does the JD present a balanced combination of detail and synthesis?
44	Is the JD accompanied by a narrative description of its content in the manuscript text?

Note. MMR = Mixed methods research, JD = Joint display.

¹The integration strategy refers to the process of integration, including the purpose of the integration, when and how many stages of integration will occur, what type of analysis and integration procedures (i.e., merge, build, and connect) will be used, and who will be involved in the integration.

Discussion

Comprehensive Nature of the Mixed Methods Integration Quality Framework

In this methodological review, we identified and synthesized criteria for appraising the quality of integration in MMR studies. As a result of this process, we developed the MMIQF, a framework organized into four domains to support the design, implementation, and reporting of the integration dimension in MMR studies. A key feature of the MMIQF is its comprehensive nature, as evidenced by several of its attributes.

First, the criteria in the MMIQF encompass various stages of the MMR research process. This feature is consistent with the contemporary definition of integration as an intentional activity planned from the beginning of the study and likely to occur at different stages (Fetters & Molina-Azorin, 2017; Plano Clark, 2019).

Second, the MMIQF does not limit the appraisal to a single type of quality as it combines methodological and reporting quality criteria (Hong & Pluye, 2019). As such, the framework is intended to be useful in assessing how well the overall integration strategy is being implemented according to the best practices and recommendations suggested in the MMR literature, as well as the extent to which it is being reported transparently and accurately.

Third, the MMIQF includes post-hoc criteria for appraising the quality of integration after the study has been completed as well as criteria related to strategies that authors should follow while planning and conducting the MMR study to address potential threats to the quality of integration. Although these criteria are primarily intended for authors, they may also prove helpful in evaluating planned integration in MMR grant proposals. However, we suggest that future enhancements to this framework focus specifically on grant evaluation to achieve greater precision in this regard.

Fourth, in developing the MMIQF, we sought to include criteria that were broadly relevant and not overly specific so that they would be compatible with different views and approaches to the concept of integration and applicable to a wide range of MMR designs and studies from any discipline.

Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research

The MMIQF has several limitations. First, the MMIQF is the first iteration of a framework developed based on a systematic review of the relevant literature. Therefore, additional work is needed to improve and optimize the framework. Potential future steps may include assessing its content validity, reliability, and applicability by using it to appraise the methodological quality of MMR prevalence studies or methodological reviews, and by conducting a consensus-based study involving experts.

Second, owing to their generic nature, some criteria may not be applicable to specific MMR designs or approaches. For example, if authors aim to integrate quantitative and qualitative secondary data sources, certain criteria for planning integration may be irrelevant. Thus, future variations of this framework will need to be developed to appraise integration in more specific MMR designs and approaches.

Third, the MMIQF consists of a long list of criteria that may be time-consuming and complex to apply, thereby limiting its adoption by the MMR community. In addition, the use of the MMIQF should be complementary to other general MMR quality frameworks, as it focuses on only one specific dimension of the MMR process. Therefore, future research should focus on prioritizing and simplifying these criteria through the aforementioned consensus-based study among the MMR community.

Fourth, there is a risk that the MMIQF will be applied in a prescriptive manner without considering the nuances of the researcher’s discipline or the individual characteristics of each study. Therefore, it is critical to recognize that this framework is not a substitute for researcher judgment and that its implementation should take into account the unique aspects of the research context. In this regard, we agree with several scholars (Cheek, 2015; Sandelowski, 2015) who have emphasized that no matter how clear and comprehensive a set of quality criteria is, its implementation will never be entirely mechanical but will always involve a degree of subjectivity, professional judgment, and contextual considerations. Researchers interpret and apply the criteria in different ways depending on their affiliation with a particular community of practice (Fàbregues et al., 2019). In addition, quality is contextual in that certain criteria are applicable only under certain research conditions. For example, there may be situations in which a fully narrative description of integration may be more appropriate than the inclusion of a joint display; thus, the criteria in the MMIQF that relate to joint displays may not be appropriate. Lastly, it is critical that the criteria for integration support high-quality practice without limiting creativity or the potential for future advances in the field.

Contribution to the Field of Mixed Methods

This paper presents the first framework specifically designed to appraise the quality of integration in MMR studies. This framework fills a gap in the literature on the quality of MMR, as almost all quality frameworks published to date have been limited to detecting the presence of integration or determining its intensity (i.e., at how many stages researchers integrate), rather than providing a comprehensive appraisal of the integration process. In addition, the development of this framework is particularly important in light of the integration issues present in many MMR empirical articles. As noted above, several methodological reviews of the use of MMR across disciplines show that most articles that self-identify as MMR do not provide evidence of integration. Even in cases where they do integrate, either the description of the integration procedures or the integration results, or both, are not sufficiently explicit, often because the authors did not follow the procedures recommended in the literature.

To address these issues, the MMIQF includes essential elements that define integration in MMR studies. The framework is intended to serve as a valuable tool for readers and reviewers of MMR studies to identify missing elements of integration, as well as for authors to ensure that the integration process has been implemented with sufficient integrity, coherence, transparency, and comprehensiveness.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Toward a Framework for Appraising the Quality of Integration in Mixed Methods Research

Supplemental Material for Toward a Framework for Appraising the Quality of Integration in Mixed Methods Research by Sergi Fàbregues, Ahtisham Younas, Elsa Lucia Escalante-Barrios, José F. Molina-Azorin, and Pedro Vázquez-Miraz in Journal of Mixed Methods Research.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We thank Michael D. Fetters for the learning and valuable discussions about integration that we were able to have with him. We also thank him for the impact he has had on the lives of some of the co-authors of this paper, both personally and professionally. Mike was a good friend with whom we had the opportunity to share many wonderful moments. He was also a generous colleague, always willing to share his knowledge and do his best to improve the lives and work of others. You will be deeply missed, Mike, and this paper is our way of honoring your contributions to mixed methods and your passion for integration. We also thank the two anonymous reviewers, Dr. Timothy C. Guetterman, Co-editor-in-chief of JMMR, and Dr. Cheryl N. Poth, for their careful review of the manuscript and thoughtful comments.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: José F. Molina-Azorin and Sergi Fàbregues are both members of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Mixed Methods Research in the roles of Co-Editor-in-Chief and Associate Editor, respectively. Co-Editor in Chief Timothy C. Guetterman was solely responsible for the decision-making process for this article. José F. Molina-Azorin and Sergi Fàbregues were completely removed from the peer review and acceptance process.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Sergi Fàbregues

Ahtisham Younas

Elsa Lucia Escalante-Barrios

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Alexander

Eppler

M. J.

Comi

(2021). Data integration: A real-time, participant-driven, and visually supported method. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 15(1), 87–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689820902294

Bazeley

(2018). Integrating analyses in mixed methods research. Sage.

Cheek

(2015). It depends: Possible impacts of moving the field of mixed methods research toward best practice guidelines. In Hesse-Biber

Johnson

R. B.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 624–636). Oxford University Press.

Creamer

E. G.

(2018). An introduction to fully integrated mixed methods research. Sage.

Creswell

J. W.

Tashakkori

(2007). Editorial: Developing publishable mixed methods manuscripts. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 107–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/155868980629864

Elo

Kyngäs

(2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

Fàbregues

Molina-Azorín

J. 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

Fàbregues

Molina-Azorin

J. F.

Fetters

M. 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

Fàbregues

Mumbardó-Adam

Escalante-Barrios

E. L.

Hong

Q. N.

Edelstein

Vanderboll

Fetters

M. D.

(2022). Mixed methods intervention studies in children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders: A methodological review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 126, Article 104239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2022.104239

10.

Fàbregues

Paré

M.-H.

Meneses

(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

11.

Fetters

M. D.

(2020). The mixed methods research workbook: Activities for designing, implementing, and publishing projects. Sage.

12.

Fetters

M. D.

Curry

L. A.

Creswell

J. W.

(2013). Achieving integration in mixed methods designs - principles and practices. Health Services Research, 48(6 PART2), 2134–2156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117

13.

Fetters

M. D.

Molina-Azorin

J. 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689817714066

14.

Guetterman

T. C.

Fetters

M. D.

Creswell

J. 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

15.

Guetterman

T. C.

Molina-Azorin

J. F.

Fetters

M. D.

(2020). Virtual special issue on “Integration in mixed methods research”. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(4), 430–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689820956401

16.

Harrison

R. L.

Reilly

T. M.

Creswell

J. W.

(2020). Methodological rigor in mixed methods: An application in management studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(4), 473–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689819900585

17.

Haynes-Brown

T. K.

Fetters

M. D.

(2021). Using joint display as an analytic process: An illustration using bar graphs joint displays from a mixed methods study of how beliefs shape secondary school teachers’ use of technology. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 20(7), Article 160940692199328. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406921993286

18.

Hong

Q. N.

Pluye

(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

19.

Hong

Q. N.

Pluye

Fàbregues

Bartlett

Boardman

Cargo

Dagenais

Gagnon

M. P.

Griffiths

Nicolau

O’Cathain

Rousseau

M. C.

Vedel

(2019). Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: A modified e-Delphi study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 111, 49–59.e41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.03.008

20.

Johnson

R. B.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

(2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224

21.

Lynam

Damayanti

Rialine Titaley

Suharno

Bradley

Krentel

(2020). Reframing integration for mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 14(3), 336–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689819879352

22.

Morgan

D. L.

(2023). Who is on the bandwagon? Core and periphery in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 17(2), 135–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/15586898221096319

23.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

Johnson

(2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48–63.

24.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2019). Meaningful integration within mixed methods studies: Identifying why, what, when, and how. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 57(2), 106–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.01.007

25.

Plano Clark

V. L.

Walton

J. B.

Foote

L. A.

(2022). Designing for integration in mixed methods case studies. In Hitchcock

J. H.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

(Eds.), The Routledge handbook for advancing integration in mixed methods research (pp. 213–228). Routledge.

26.

Sandelowski

(2015). A matter of taste: Evaluating the quality of qualitative research. Nursing Inquiry, 22(2), 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12080

27.

Sligo

J. L.

Nairn

K. M.

McGee

R. O.

(2018). Rethinking integration in mixed methods research using data from different eras: Lessons from a project about teenage vocational behaviour. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 21(1), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2017.1321868

28.

Steinmetz-Wood

Pluye

Ross

N. A.

(2019). The planning and reporting of mixed methods studies on the built environment and health. Preventive Medicine, 126, Article 105752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.105752

29.

Tashakkori

Teddlie

(2008). Quality of inferences in mixed methods research: Calling for an integrative framework. In Bergman

M. M.

(Ed.), Advances in mixed methods research (pp. 101–119). Sage.

30.

Uprichard

Dawney

(2019). Data diffraction: Challenging data integration in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 13(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689816674650

31.

Younas

Durante

(2023). Decision tree for identifying pertinent integration procedures and joint displays in mixed methods research. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 79(7), 2754–2769. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.15536

32.

Younas

Pedersen

Tayaben

J. L.

(2019). Review of mixed methods research in nursing. Nursing Research, 68(6), 464–472. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNR.0000000000000372

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.

0.00 MB

0.44 MB