Telling Better Stories: An Introduction to the Special Issue Using Mixed Methods Research in the Field of Behavioral Disorders

Overview of the Special Issue

This special issue consists of three interconnected parts. Readers are encouraged to read them taking this into consideration. First, the opening two articles provide a comprehensive overview and introduction to MMR, along with rationale for the increased and better use of MMR in EBD research. The next three articles, written by current EBD researchers working on contemporary projects, provide a set of well-apportioned studies that made explicit use of MMR designs. The final article serves as a call to EBD researchers and the field to consider MMR design in their future research.

The opening article, “A Framework for Approaching Mixed Methods Intervention Research to Address the Emotional and Behavioral Health Needs of Children,” written by the guest editors (Houchins et al., this special issue), provides a primer for using MMR in EBD intervention research. The authors provide a concise yet surprisingly comprehensive introduction to MMR. Perhaps most importantly, the authors make the case that these approaches are dynamic. Emphasis is on how MMR approaches can be systematically and seamlessly integrated into intervention research allowing researchers to capitalize on the strengths of one method to supplement, compliment, or compensate for weaknesses of another method. The usability of MMR for EBD intervention research is discussed, and the article provides the field with a comprehensive “aspirational framework” of 17 areas in which MMR can be applied. Readers are cautioned that few studies or programs of research will fully address all 17 elements, and from this perspective, the authors’ aspirational list can bring the field closer to making more effective use of MMR approaches. The article concludes with the caveat that the goal of the special issue is to honor the incredible achievements of existing EBD researchers while encouraging the field to consider how MMR approaches can further advance EBD intervention research.

In the second article, Maureen Conroy and her colleagues provide an empirical report on the extent to which MMR studies have been published in two of the EBD field’s most prominent journals (Behavioral Disorders and Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders). Conducting a systematic search of both journals over the past 20 years, the authors found that only two out of 239 identified intervention studies had explicitly used an MMR design, empirically confirming the degree to which MMR is underutilized in EBD research. On the other hand, the authors noted encouragement that some EBD researchers have been using multimethod approaches; an important distinction that offers insights into the current status of the field. Specifically, MMR requires integrating, mixing, or combining quantitative and qualitative, while multi-methodical approaches use separate research methods when examining distinct research questions within a study. The authors posit that moving from multimethods to MMR will enable researchers to leverage the strengths offered by method integration, vis-à-vis exploration of the “why and how”—the nuances—of interventions. The article also provides a brief but informative history of MMR and its use in special education research. The discussion of why MMR might not be widely used in EBD research is especially pertinent, pointing to several possible barriers: (a) planning and logistics that can be labor intensiveness and require more resources; (b) execution requiring expertise in both qualitative and quantitative design, which can lead to methodological disagreements among researchers; (c) the production of large amount of data that can be unwieldy; and (d) funding agencies that may not prioritize or support using MMR designs over single method approaches.

The next three articles in the special issue provide examples of different studies that made explicit use of MMR designs.

The first article, by Bradshaw et al. (this special issue), used a concurrent parallel MMR design to examine the costs associated with the implementation of Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) across 77 U.S. schools, including a qualitative case illustration of one school. The authors describe an innovative approach to cost analysis, with an embedded case study MMR design. Using a framework for cost analyses of school-based programs, the authors investigated the relationship between expenses associated with PBIS and program fidelity. By demonstrating the utility of their cost analysis framework with a real-world case example, an obvious strength of this article is its simplicity. The authors also pointed out that their incorporation of an illustrative qualitative case in a study examining costs and fidelity may be the first of its kind in educational research. The article’s conclusion, which highlights the potential utility of their approach for articulating real-world implications from research-derived knowledge, will be useful for researchers considering similar studies of school-wide programs.

In the second research report in this series of examples, Bruhn et al. (this special issue) used a convergent parallel MMR design to examine the usability and feasibility of ongoing professional development on teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy using data-based individualization. In this study, qualitative and quantitative data were collected concurrently but analyzed separately for 16 participating general and special education teachers. Quantitative findings indicated that the ability of participating teachers to implement data-based individualization in their classrooms improved other time; while qualitative findings suggested that active practice and collaboration with other professionals contributed to improvements. Convergence occurred when the independent qualitative and quantitative findings were reviewed by the researchers, allowing for examination of both how and why data-based individualization is used by teachers in their classrooms, across multiple settings, with different groups of children, and over time.

The third article, by Bastable et al. (this special issue), used a descriptive concurrent parallel MMR approach to understand teacher perceptions of a professional development intervention designed to reduce disproportionality in school discipline, implemented across three U.S. states with 181 participants. In this case, the intervention (ReACT) is an innovative training for educators designed to reduce racial disparities in school discipline. The topic is more than timely, and the use of a concurrent parallel MMR design highlights how qualitative and quantitative data collection and analyses can be mixed to take full advantage of both traditions. This article may be especially helpful for scholars with no experience in this realm. It provides two clear research questions, one quantitative and the other qualitative, with step-by-step descriptions using an MMR approach. Researchers new to MMR will also benefit from the descriptions of credibility checks that were used and the MMR analytic strategies section that describe how qualitative and quantitative approaches were integrated. The discussion of the study’s limitations and strengths also provides some useful insights when considering using MMR designs.

In the concluding article, “Addressing the Catch-22 of Using Mixed Methods in Behavior Disorders Intervention Research,” Hitchcock and colleagues (this special issue) offer a comprehensive and deliberate but gently provocative closure to the special issue. Using the concept of a catch-22, the authors illustrate the folly of being stuck in a cycle in which moving in a direction of meaningful change is hindered by a kind of status quo. In this case, the catch-22 to increased use of MMR is lack of recognition of these methods combined with epistemological traditions in the field, sort of like a collective “that’s the way it’s always been done” mentality. This part of the article reinforces points made by Conroy and colleagues (this special issue), who speculated about barriers getting in the way of broader use of MMR in the field. Hitchcock et al use functional behavior assessment to make their points, noting that while many EBD researchers already consider their work from an MMR frame, the field now needs to formalize the use of MMR as a core attribute of EBD intervention research. MMR offers tools to systematically understand, account for, and incorporate contextual factors into our research design such as treatment acceptability, social validity, and implementation fidelity.

Readers may find the strengths of Hitchcock et al. (this special issue) to be the tables and figures that succinctly illustration these points. For example, Bastable et al. (this special issue) provided a clear and concise presentation of how they used credibility checks. Hitchcock et al. provided an extensive list of potential credibility checks that researchers may consider when designing a study. Similarly, Hitchcock et al. provided readers with a comprehensive overview of possible MMR configurations that they may want to consider when designing a study.

Collectively, this special issue aims to advance the science and practice of EBD research through MMR. The field of EBD has a robust and ever-expanding evidence-base. While there is a considerable body of literature examining the efficacy of programs and practices for students with EBD, there are also a pressing need to better understand “why” and “how” these interventions work across individuals and different settings. MMR can allow researchers to explore more fully the eternal question, what works best, under what conditions, and for whom. We hope that this special issue provides the field with practical guidance on how to enhance study quality and usefulness in the field of EBD that will become routine practice when conducting intervention research. May you be inspired and “nudged” to use MMR to tell even better intervention research stories that meet the needs of children with EBD and those around them!