The movement towards blending qualitative and quantitative methods in health services research is now well established. Models for blending the two include a hierarchical approach, in which one or other approach dominates, and a partnership model featuring more equal (albeit differing) roles for each. The partnership model may involve simultaneous or sequential application of qualitative and quantitative methods. For each model, the ideal is to blend qualitative and quantitative approaches to take advantage of the particular strengths of one approach in compensating for known limitations in the other under particular circumstances. The optimal blend varies at different stages of the research process, from conceptualizing the study through data collection and analysis, to interpreting the results.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Filstead W J.Qualitative methods: a needed perspective in evaluation research. In Cook T D, Reichardt C S (eds.) Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research. Beverly Hills, California: Sage, 1979: 33-48.
2.
Stange K C, Miller W L, Crabtree B F, O’Connor P J, Zyzanski S J.Multimethod research: approaches for integrating qualitative and quantitative methods. J Gen Intern Med1994; 9:278-282.
3.
Steckler A, McLeroy K R, Goodman R M, Bird S T, McCormick L.Toward integrating qualitative and quantitative methods: an introduction. Health Educ Q1992; 19:1-8.
4.
Morse J M.Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nurs Res1991; 40:120-123.
5.
Patton M Q.Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, California: Sage, 1990.
6.
Reichardt C S, Cook T D.Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods. In Cook T D, Reichardt C S (eds.) Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research. Beverly Hills, California: Sage, 1979:7-32.
7.
Rossi P H, Freeman H E.Evaluation: a systematic approach. Newbury Park, California: Sage, 1993.
8.
Miles M B, Huberman A M.Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, California: Sage, 1994.
9.
Edwards N C, Cushman R, Hotz S, et al. Development and testing of a multifaceted intervention program to reduce the incidence of smoking relapse during pregnancy and postpartum of women and their partners. Ottawa, Canada: University of Ottawa Community Health Research Unit, Technical Report, October 1994.
10.
Bellamy N, Buchanan W, Goldsmith C H, Stitt L.Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol1988; 15:1833-1840.
11.
Ruta D A, Garratt A M, Leng M, Russell I T, MacDonald L M.A new approach to the measurement of quality of life: The Patient-Generated Index. Med Care1994; 32:1109-1126.
12.
MacLean L M, Dunkley G, Lindsay E, et al. Partnership success and evaluation: an analysis of the Heartbeat Partnership stories. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Community Health Research Unit, monograph M96-4, 1996.
13.
Radloff L S.The CES-D scale; a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Measurement1977; 1:385-401.
14.
Mahoney F I, Barthel D W.Functional evaluation: the Barthel Index. Maryland State Med J1965; 14:611-665.
15.
Lezak M D.Neuropsychological assessment. 3rd edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
