Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mixed Methods Research Design for Prevention Science: Methods, Critiques, and Recommendations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Defining Prevention Science

Part of the book series: Advances in Prevention Science ((Adv. Prevention Science))

Abstract

This chapter examines the complex and challenging considerations involved in the design of rigorous mixed methods research studies. In this effort, research investigators must understand and address certain competing or conflicting qualitative and quantitative traditions and imperatives for conducting a scientifically rigorous, yet culturally sensitive mixed methods research study. The aim is to design a well-crafted mixed methods research study that incorporates the best elements of qualitative and quantitative data forms for a study and generates more informative prevention science research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Studies identified by an asterisk (*) are reviewed in Table 20.1.

References

Studies identified by an asterisk (*) are reviewed in Table 20.1.

  • *Armstrong, M. I., & Boothroyd, R. A. (2007). Predictors of emotional well-being in at-risk adolescent girls: Developing preventive intervention strategies. Journal of Behavioral Health Services Research, 34, 435–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biglan, A., Domitrovich, C., Ernst, J., Etz, K., Mason, M. J., Robertson, E., et al. (2011). Standards of knowledge for the science of prevention. Fairfax, VA: Society for Prevention Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Bowleg, L., Teti, M., Malebranche, D. J., & Tschann, J. M. (2012). “It’s an uphill battle everyday”: Intersectionality, low-income Black heterosexual men, and implications for HIV prevention research and interventions. Psychology of Men and Masculinity. doi:10.1037/a0028392. Advance online publication.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. C., Colditz, G. A., & Proctor, E. K. (2012). Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bryman, A. (2007). Barriers to integrating quantitative and qualitative research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 8–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Cappella, E., Jackson, D. R., Bilal, C., Hamre, B. K., & Soule, C. (2011). Bridging mental health and education in urban elementary schools: Participatory research to inform intervention development. School Psychology Review, 40, 486–508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castro, F. G., & Coe, K. (2007). Traditions and alcohol use: A mixed methods analysis. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 269–284.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Castro, F. G., Kellison, J. G., Boyd, S., & Kopak, A. (2010). A methodology for conducting integrative mixed-methods research and data analyses. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4, 342–360.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Center for Scientific Review. (2013, January). Definitions of criteria and considerations for research project grant (RPG/R01/R03/R15/R21/R34) critiques. Retrieved from http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/critiques/rpg.htm.

  • *Chakrapani, V., Newman, P. A., Shunmugam, M., & Dubrow, R. (2011). Socio-structural contexts of needle and syringe sharing behaviours of HIV-positive injecting drug users in Manipur, India: A mixed methods investigation. Harm Reduction Journal, 8, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Cianelli, R., Ferrer, L., & McElmurry, B. J. (2008). HIV prevention and low-income Chilean women: Machismo, marianismo and HIV misconceptions. Culture, Health and Sexuality, 10, 297–306.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Coombes, L., Allen, D., Marsh, M., & Foxcroft, D. (2009). The Strengthening Families programme (SFP) 10–14 and substance misuse in Barnsley: The perspectives of facilitators and families. Child Abuse Review, 18, 41–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., Klassen, A. C., Plano Clark, V. L., & Smith, K. C. (2011). Best practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences. Bethesda, MD: Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advances in mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6, 80–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Entering the field of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 1–17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diez Roux, A. V. (2011). Complex systems thinking and current impasses in health disparities research. American Journal of Public Health, 101, 1627–1634.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dreher, M. (1994). Qualitative research methods from the reviewer’s perspective. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative methods (pp. 281–297). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielding, N. G. (2012). Triangulation and mixed methods designs: Data integration with new research technologies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6, 124–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flay, B. R., Biglan, A., Boruch, R. F., Castro, F. G., Gottfriedson, D., Kellam, S., et al. (2005). Standards of evidence: Criteria for efficacy, effectiveness and dissemination. Prevention Science, 6, 151–175.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gelo, O., Braakman, D., & Benetka, G. (2008). Quantitative and qualitative research: Beyond the debate. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 42, 266–290.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez-Guarda, R. M., Florom-Smith, A. L., & Thomas, T. (2011). A syndemic model of substance abuse, intimate partner violence, HIV infection, and mental health among Hispanics. Public Health Nursing, 28, 366–378.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105–117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, W. E., Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L. P., Petska, K. S., & Creswell, J. D. (2005). Mixed methods research designs in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 224–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2010). Mixed methods research: Merging theory and practice. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesse-Biber, S. (2012). Feminist approaches to triangulation: Uncovering subjugated knowledge and fostering social change in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6, 137–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homer, J. B., & Hirsch, G. B. (2006). System dynamics modeling for public health: Background and opportunities. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 452–458.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Hanbury, A., Wallace, L. M., & Clark, M. (2011). Multiple outcome measures and mixed methods for evaluating the effectiveness of theory-based behavior-change interventions: A case study targeting health professionals’ adoption of a national suicide prevention guide. Psychology, Health and Medicine, 16, 291–303.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 112–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45, 214–222.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Landsverk, J., Brown, C. H., Chamberlain, L., Palinkas, L., Ogihara, M., Czaja, S., et al. (2012). Design and analysis of dissemination and implementation research. In R. C. Brownson, G. A. Colditz, & E. K. Protcor (Eds.), Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice (pp. 225–260). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lassiter, P. S., Dew, B. J., Newton, K., Hays, D. G., & Yarbrough, B. (2006). Self-defined empowerment for gay and lesbian parents: A qualitative examination. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 14, 245–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Lewis, I., Maruia, B., & Walker, S. (2008). Violence against women in Papua New Guinea. Journal of Family Studies, 14, 183–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, T. D., & Freeman, M. (2011). Why the society on qualitative inquiry would be good for division 5. Score Newsletter, 33, 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mertens, D. (2003). Mixed methods and the politics of human research: The transformative-emancipatory perspective. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 135–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mertens, D. M. (2012). Triangulation and mixed methods research: Provocative positions. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6, 75–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milinki, A. K. (1999). Cases in qualitative research: Research reports for discussion and evaluation. Los Angeles, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • *Montaghan, M., Sanders, R. E., Kelly, K. P., Cogen, F. R., & Streisand, R. (2011). Using qualitative methods to guide clinical trial design: Parent recommendations for intervention modification in type 1 diabetes. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 868–872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research, 40, 120–123.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *Nelson, K., & Tom, N. (2011). Evaluation of substance abuse, HIV and hepatitis prevention initiative for urban Native Americans: The Native Voices Program. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 43, 349–354.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • *O’Brien, R. A., Moritz, P., Luckey, D. W., McClatchey, M. W., Ingoldsby, E. M., & Olds, D. L. (2012). Mixed methods analysis of participant attrition in the Nurse-Family Partnership. Prevention Science, 13, 219–228.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Teddlie, C. (2003). A framework for analyzing data in mixed methods research. In A. Tashakkori & R. C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 351–383). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patten, M. L. (2012). Understanding research methods: An overview of the essentials (8th ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak.

    Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., Zyphur, M. J., & Zhang, Z. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15, 209–233.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, J. L., Mobley, C., Hammond, C., Withington, C., Drew, S., Stringfield, S., et al. (2012). A mixed methods sampling methodology for a multisite case study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6, 34–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siebers, P. O., Macal, C. M., Garnett, J., Buxton, D., & Pidd, M. (2010). Discrete-event simulation is dead, long live agent-based simulation! Journal of Simulation, 4, 204–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Simoes, C., Matos, M. G., & Batista-Foguet, J. M. (2008). Juvenile delinquency: Analysis of risk and protective factors using quantitative and qualitative methods. Cognitive Brain Behavior, 12, 389–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (1999). Counseling the culturally different: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, W., & Bennett, D. A. (2010). The explicit representation of context in agent-based models of complex adaptive spatial systems. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100, 1128–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed-methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioral sciences. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 3–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Triandis, H. C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C. H. (1990). Multimethod probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1006–1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Tummala-Narra, P., Inman, A. G., & Ettigi, S. P. (2011). Asian Indians’ responses to discrimination: A mixed-method examination of identify, coping, and self-efficacy. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 2, 205–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • *Wilkerson, J. M., Danilenko, G. P., Smolenski, D. J., Myer, B. B., & Rosser, B. R. S. (2011). The role of critical self-reflection of assumptions in an online HIV intervention for men who have sex with men. AIDS Education and Prevention, 23, 13–24.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yoshikawa, H., Weisner, T. S., Kalil, A., & Way, N. (2008). Mixing qualitative and quantitative research in developmental science: Uses and methodological choices. Developmental Psychology, 44, 344–354.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This chapter was supported by grant number P20 MD 002207-05 and 5P20MD002287 from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD), Elias Provencio-Vasquez, Principal Investigator. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official view of the NIMHD, the National Institutes of Health, or the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). Funding was also provided to the third author by an institutional training grant from the Nation Institute of Mental Health (T32 MH018387) and by a National Research Service Award from NICHD (1F31 HD070602).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Texas, 500 W. University, El Paso, TX, 79968, USA

    Felipe González Castro

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Texas, El Paso, TX, USA

    Osvaldo F. Morera & Katherine M. Aguirre

  3. Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, Arizona

    Joshua G. Kellison

Authors
  1. Felipe González Castro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Osvaldo F. Morera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joshua G. Kellison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Katherine M. Aguirre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Felipe González Castro .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Ontario, Ohio, USA

    Zili Sloboda

  2. JBS International, Inc., Rockville, USA

    Hanno Petras

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Castro, F.G., Morera, O.F., Kellison, J.G., Aguirre, K.M. (2014). Mixed Methods Research Design for Prevention Science: Methods, Critiques, and Recommendations. In: Sloboda, Z., Petras, H. (eds) Defining Prevention Science. Advances in Prevention Science. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7424-2_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-7424-2_20

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4899-7423-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-7424-2

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation