Article

Toward Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: An Introduction

Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill 27599-7400.
Health education quarterly 02/1992; 19(1):1-8. DOI: 10.1177/109019819201900101
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Both the qualitative and quantitative paradigms have weaknesses which, to a certain extent, are compensated for by the strengths of the other. As indicated in this article, the strengths of quantitative methods are that they produce factual, reliable outcome data that are usually generalizable to some larger population. The strengths of qualitative methods are that they generate rich, detailed, valid process data that usually leave the study participants' perspectives in tact. This article discusses how qualitative and quantitative methods can be combined and it introduces the articles included in this issue.

0 Followers
 · 
163 Views
  • Source
    • "Various evaluation methods and strategies have been developed [8]. Evaluations that mix methodologies are considered robust [9] [10] and particularly useful in the medical setting [11] [12]. There are many ways to combine methods, such as mixing qualitative and quantitative methods [13], involving users of varying perspectives for data collections [14], or using various data collection methods to achieve greater data validity. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Underspecified user needs and frequent lack of a gold standard reference are typical barriers to technology evaluation. To address this problem, this paper presents a two-phase evaluation framework involving usability experts (phase 1) and end-users (phase 2). In phase 1, a cross-system functionality alignment between expert-derived user needs and system functions was performed to inform the choice of "the best available" comparison system to enable a cognitive walkthrough in phase 1 and a comparative effectiveness evaluation in phase 2. During phase 2, five quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods are mixed to assess usability: time-motion analysis, software log, questionnaires - System Usability Scale and the Unified Theory of Acceptance of Use of Technology, think-aloud protocols, and unstructured interviews. Each method contributes data for a unique measure (e.g., time motion analysis contributes task-completion-time; software log contributes action transition frequency). The measures are triangulated to yield complementary insights regarding user-perceived ease-of-use, functionality integration, anxiety during use, and workflow impact. To illustrate its use, we applied this framework in a formative evaluation of a software called Integrated Model for Patient Care and Clinical Trials (IMPACT). We conclude that this mixed-methods evaluation framework enables an integrated assessment of user needs satisfaction and user-perceived usefulness and usability of a novel design. This evaluation framework effectively bridges the gap between co-evolving user needs and technology designs during iterative prototyping and is particularly useful when it is difficult for users to articulate their needs for technology support due to the lack of a baseline.
    Journal of Biomedical Informatics 12/2013; 52. DOI:10.1016/j.jbi.2013.12.004 · 2.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "When studying a sensitive subject, it is important to leave the participants' perspective intact while collecting rich, detailed and valid data. As recommended by Steckler et al. (1992), a qualitative design is most suitable for this purpose. The I-Change Model (De Vries et al., 2003, 2008; see Fig. 1) served as the theoretical framework of this research. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: two studies aimed to explore the advice Dutch midwives give and the information Dutch pregnant women and partners of pregnant women receive about alcohol consumption in pregnancy. Design: study 1 included individual semi-structured interviews with midwives. Study 2 involved focus groups and individual semi-structured interviews with pregnant women and partners. Interview content was based on the I-Change Model. Setting: study 1 was conducted nation-wide; Study 2 was conducted in the central and southern regions of the Netherlands. Participants: 10 midwives in Study 1; 25 pregnant women and nine partners in Study 2. Measurements and findings: study 1 showed that midwives intended to advise complete abstinence, although this advice was mostly given when women indicated to consume alcohol. Midwives reported to lack good screening skills and sufficient knowledge about the mechanisms and consequences of antenatal alcohol use and did not involve partners in their alcohol advice. In Study 2, the views of pregnant women and partners were congruent to the findings reported in Study 1. In addition, pregnant women and partners considered midwives as an important source of information on alcohol in pregnancy. Partners were interested in the subject, had a liberal view on antenatal alcohol use and felt ignored by midwives and websites. Pregnant women indicated to receive conflicting alcohol advice from their health professionals. Key conclusions: midwives' alcohol advice requires improvement with regard to screening, knowledge about mechanisms and consequences of antenatal alcohol use and the involvement of the partners in alcohol advice during pregnancy. Implications for practice: training should be given to Dutch midwives to increase their screening skills and their alcohol related knowledge to pregnant women. Research is needed to determine how the midwife's alcohol advice to the partner should be framed in order to optimise the partner's involvement concerning alcohol abstinence in pregnancy. More attention to the topic at a national level, for example via mass media campaigns, should also be considered to change views about alcohol use during pregnancy in all stakeholders.
    Midwifery 11/2013; 29(11). DOI:10.1016/j.midw.2012.11.014 · 1.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "As Guba (1987) states, one paradigm rules out the other, just as surely belief in round world precludes belief in flat one. Nevertheless, some argue that it is possible to subscribe to the philosophy of one approach and employ the methods of another (Reichardt & Cook, 1979; Sale et al., 2002; Steckler et al., 1992; Walle, 1997; Walsh, 2003). For instance, Sale et al. (2002) suggest that the fact that the approaches are ontologically and epistemologically incommensurate does not mean that multiple methods cannot be combined in a single study if it is done for complementary purposes. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article clarifies fundamental differences between qualitative and quantitative methodologies from ontological and epistemological perspectives. Additionally, it explicates the issue of compatibility and integration of the two approaches. Through the synthesis and analysis of previously published materials the author shows that the ultimate difference between quantitative and qualitative approaches lies in the logic of justification, not methods. The two approaches stem from two entirely different ontological and epistemological perspectives representing two distinct worldviews.
    Journal of Quality Assurance in Hospitality & Tourism 02/2011; 12(1):73-81. DOI:10.1080/1528008X.2011.541810
Show more