In this article, the authors demonstrate how qualitative methods can form a foundation for quantitative research by improving instrument validity, informing the data collection process, and improving cost-effectiveness in a study of physician decision making. To test terminology, applicability, and comprehension of a quantitative questionnaire for doctors in the United States and United Kingdom, each country's researchers conducted physician focus groups with questions organized around the experiment, including (a) validity of video vignettes of actor “patients,” (b) population accessibility, (c) level of remuneration, (d) appropriate endorsement figure, and (e) question comprehension. Focus group data collected during instrument development and fieldwork planning streamlined processes and achieved cost efficiencies and effectiveness for the overall study. Beyond simply adding a post hoc qualitative component to an already free-standing quantitative methodology, focus groups were used in the study formulation, where the qualitative methodology was integrated into the process of developing a valid survey instrument.
Altheide, D., & Johnson, J. (1994). Criteria for assessing interpretive validity in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 485-499). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
Arber, S., McKinlay, J., Adams, A., Marceau, L., Link, C., & O'Donnell, A. (2004). Influence of patient characteristics on doctors' questioning and lifestyle advice for coronary heart disease: A UK/US video experiment. British Journal of General Practitioners, 54, 673-678.
3.
Basch, C.E. (1987). Focus group interview: An underutilized research technique for improving theory and practice in health education. Health Education Quarterly, 14(4), 411-448.
4.
Becker, H.S. (1996). The epistemology of qualitative research. In R. Jessor, A. Colby, & R. A. Shweder (Eds.), Ethnography and human development: Context and meaning in social inquiry (pp. 53-71). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
Becker, H.S., Geer, B., Hughes, E.C., & Strauss, A.L. (1961). Boys in white: Students' culture in medical school . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
Berkwits, M., & Inui, T.S. (1998). Making use of qualitative research techniques . Journal of General Internal Medicine, 13(3), 195-199.
7.
Brehm, J. (1994). Stubbing our toes for a foot in the door?: Prior contact, incentives and survey response. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 6(1), 45-63.
8.
Britten, N., & Fisher, B. (1993). Qualitative research and general practice. British Journal of General Practice, 43(372), 270-271.
9.
Britten, N., Jones, R., Murphy, E., & Stacy, R. (1995). Qualitative research methods in general practice and primary care. Family Practice, 12(1), 104-114.
10.
Buchanan, D.R. (1992). An uneasy alliance: Combining qualitative and quantitative research methods. Health Education Quarterly , 19(1), 117-135.
11.
Carey, J.W. (1993). Linking qualitative and quantitative methods: Integrating cultural factors into public health. Qualitative Health Research, 3, 298-318.
12.
Clark, L.A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309-319.
13.
Clarke, C., Hartery, L., & Worrall, G. (1998). Recruiting family doctors for research studies . Canadian Family Physician, 44, 472-473.
14.
Conrad, P. (1990). Qualitative research on chronic illness: A commentary on methods and conceptual development. Social Science & Medicine, 30(11), 1257-1263.
15.
Creswell, J.W., Fetters, M.D., & Ivankova, N.V. (2004). Designing a mixed methods study in primary care. Annals ofFamily Medicine, 2, 7-12.
16.
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. . New York:
17.
Drake, S.C., & Cayton, H. (1945). Black metropolisHarcourt Brace .
18.
Gergen, M.M., & Gergen, K.J. (2000). Qualitative inquiry: Tensions and transformations . In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp.1025-1046) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
Gorard, S. (2006). Towards a judgment-based statistical analysis . British Journal of Sociology of Education, 27(1), 67-80.
20.
Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp.105-117). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
Gubrium, J.F. (1992). Qualitative research comes of age in gerontology . The Gerontologist, 32(5), 581-582.
22.
Haynes, S.N., Richard, D.C.S., & Kubany, E.S. (1995). Content validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to concepts and methods. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 238-247.
23.
Inhorn, M. (1995). Medical anthropology and epidemiology: Divergences or convergences?Social Science & Medicine, 40(3), 285-290.
24.
Inui, T.S. (1996). The virtue of qualitative and quantitative research . Annals of Internal Medicine, 125(9), 770-771.
25.
Jones, R. (1995). “Why do qualitative research?”: It should begin to close the gap between the sciences of discovery and implementation . British Medical Journal, 311(6966), 2.
26.
Levinson, W., Dull, V.T., Roter D.L., Chaumeton, N., & Frankel R.M. (1998). Recruiting physicians for office-based research . Medical Care, 36(6), 934-937.
27.
Maynard, D.W. & Schaeffer, N.C. (1997). Keeping the gate: Declinations of the request to participate in a telephone survey interview. Sociological Methods & Research, 26(1), 34-79.
28.
McKinlay, J.B., Burns, R.B., Durante R., Feldman, H.A., Freund, K.M., Harrow, B. S., et al. (1997). Patient, physician, and presentational influences on clinical decision-making for breast cancer: Results from a factorial experiment. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 3(1), 23-57.
29.
McKinlay, J.B., Burns, R.B., Feldman, H.A., Freund, K.M., Irish, J.T., Kasten, L.E., et al. (1998). Physician variability and uncertainty in the management of breast cancer: Results from a factorial experiment. Medical Care, 36(3), 385-396.
30.
McKinlay, J.B., Lin, T., Freund, K., & Moskowitz, M. (2002). The unexpected influence of physician attributes on clinical decisions: Results of an experiment. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43(1), 92-106.
31.
McKinlay, J.B., Link, C., Arber, S., Marceau, L., O'Donnell, A., Adams, A., & Lutfey, K. (2006). “How do doctors in different countries manage the same patient?”: Results of a factorial experiment. Health Services Research, 41(6), 2182-2200.
32.
McKinlay, J. B. Potter, D. A., & Feldman , H.A., (1996). Nonmedical influences on medical decision-making. Social Science & Medicine, 42(5), 769-776.
33.
Mercer, J. (1973). Labeling the mentally retarded. Berkeley: University of California Press.
34.
Messick, S. (1995). Standards of validity and the validity of standards in performance assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 14(4), 5-8.
35.
Morgan, D.L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
Pope, C., & Mays, N. (1995). Researching the parts other methods cannot reach: An introduction to qualitative methods in health services research. British Medical Journal, 311(6996), 42-46.
37.
Reid, A.J. (1996). What we want: Qualitative research— Promising frontier for family medicine. CanadianFamily Physician, 42, 387-389.
38.
Sale, J.E., & Brazil, K. (2004). A strategy to identify critical appraisal criteria for primary mixed-method studies. Quality and Quantity, 38(4), 351-365.
39.
Sandelowski, M. (2000). Combining qualitative and quantitative ample, data collection, and analysis techniques in mixedmethod studies. Research in Nursing & Health, 23, 246-255.
40.
Secker, J., Wimbush, E., Watson, J., & Milburn, K. (1995). Qualitative methods in health promotion research: Some criteria for quality. Health Education Journal, 54, 1.
41.
Sibbald, B., Addington-Hall, J., Brenneman, D., & Freekling, P.F. (1994). Telephone versus postal surveys of general practitioners: Methodological considerations. British Journal of General Practice, 44(384), 297-300.
42.
Sim, J. ( 1998). Collecting and analyzing qualitative data: Issues raised by the focus group. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 28(2), 345-352.
