Advertisement

Applying Mixed Methods Research to Healthcare Simulation

  • Timothy C. GuettermanEmail author
  • Michael D. Fetters
Chapter

Abstract

Mixed methods has the potential to add values to simulation research by informing healthcare simulations, developing assessments and measures, and evaluating the effectiveness of simulations. However, it seems under-utilized relative to other single methodology designs. This chapter provides an introduction to mixed methods in simulation research and evaluation. We introduce mixed methods and cover major designs. Each form of research brings unique strengths. We highlight the integration of qualitative and quantitative research as a central feature of mixed methods and discuss integration strategies. To illustrate the application of mixed methods to simulation, we discuss studies that have used mixed methods to: (1) evaluate simulations by integrating qualitative and quantitative data, (2) use qualitative methods to develop simulations and its features, and (3) to develop assessments and surveys for use in simulation research, such as developing models of learner experiences. Finally, we provide recommended criteria that apply to writing and reviewing for publication or funding proposals.

Keywords

Mixed methods Qualitative research Quantitative research Evaluation Health simulation Assessment 

References

  1. 1.
    Curry L, Nunez-Smith M. Mixed methods in health sciences research: a practical primer. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Creswell JW, Guetterman TC. Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 6th ed. Boston: Pearson; 2019.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aura SM, Sormunen MS, Jordan SE, Tossavainen KA, Turunen HE. Learning outcomes associated with patient simulation method in pharmacotherapy education: an integrative review. Simul Healthc. 2015;10(3):170–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alanazi AA, Nicholson N, Thomas S. The use of simulation training to improve knowledge, skills, and confidence among healthcare students: a systematic review. Internet J Allied Health Sci Pract. 2017;15(3):2.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Silberman NJ, Litwin B, Panzarella KJ, Fernandez-Fernandez A. High fidelity human simulation improves physical therapist student self-efficacy for acute care clinical practice. J Phys Ther Educ. 2016;30:14–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kron FW, Fetters MD, Scerbo MW, White CB, Lypson ML, Padilla MA, et al. Using a computer simulation for teaching communication skills: a blinded multisite mixed methods randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100:748–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ignacio J, Dolmans D, Scherpbier A, Rethans JJ, Chan S, Liaw SY. Comparison of standardized patients with high-fidelity simulators for managing stress and improving performance in clinical deterioration: a mixed methods study. Nurse Educ Today. 2015;35:1161–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tripathy S, Miller KH, Berkenbosch JW, McKinley TF, Boland KA, Brown SA, et al. When the mannequin dies, creation and exploration of a theoretical framework using a mixed methods approach. Simul Healthc. 2016;11(3):149–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Creswell JW. A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2015.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2018.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guetterman TC. What distinguishes a novice from an expert mixed methods researcher? Qual Quant. 2017;51:377–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leech NL, Onwuegbuzie AJ. A typology of mixed methods research designs. Qual Quant. 2009;43(2):265–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fetters MD, Guetterman TC, Scerbo MW, Kron FW. A two-phase mixed methods project illustrating development of a virtual human intervention to teach advanced communication skills and a subsequent blinded mixed methods trial to test the intervention for effectiveness. Int J Mult Res Approaches. 2018;10(1);296–316.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bazeley P. Integrating analyses in mixed methods research. London: SAGE; 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Teddlie C, Tashakkori A. Major issues and controveries in the use of mixed methods in the social and behvioral sciences. In: Tashakkori A, Teddlie C, editors. Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 2003. p. 3–50.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fetters MD, Curry LA, Creswell JW. Achieving integration in mixed methods designs—principles and practices. Health Serv Res. 2013;48:2134–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guetterman TC, Fetters MD, Creswell JW. Integrating quantitative and qualitative results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. Ann Fam Med. 2015;13(6):554–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fetters MD, Molina-Azorin JF. The journal of mixed methods research starts a new decade: the mixed methods research integration trilogy and its dimensions. J Mixed Methods Res. 2017;11(3):291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stufflebeam D. Evaluation models. N Dir Eval. 2001;2001(89):7–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 2002.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Waznonis AR. Simulation debriefing practices in traditional baccalaureate nursing programs: national survey results. Clin Simul Nurs. 2015;11:110–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stake RE. Qualitative research: studying how things work. New York: Guilford Press; 2010.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Creighton UniversityOmahaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Family MedicineUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations