Mixed methods intervention studies in children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders: A methodological review

Fàbregues, Sergi; Mumbardó‐Adam, Cristina; Escalante-Barrios, Elsa Lucia; Hong, Quan Nha; Edelstein, Dick; Vanderboll, Kathryn; Fetters, Michael D.

doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2022.104239

Cited by 16 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings show an increase in the publication of MMR studies of interventions aimed at stimulating young people’s interest in STEM, with more than half of these studies having been published since 2016. This conclusion is congruent with the findings of a recent review of MMR interventions in emotional and behavioral disorders by Fàbregues et al (2022) , which identified a similar increase in the number of MMR intervention studies in that field. Moreover, our findings show that the incorporation of qualitative approaches into quantitative intervention designs was especially helpful in the study of interventions aimed at enhancing young people’s engagement in STEM, and particularly in elucidating how, under what conditions, and for what types of populations such interventions were successful or unsuccessful.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Second, even though the reporting of the methods followed in the quantitative component was generally detailed, the description of several qualitative procedures, particularly the qualitative sampling and analysis, lacked the same level of detail. Similar reporting issues with these two qualitative aspects have been identified in the reviews by Lewin et al (2009) and Fàbregues et al (2022). Third, no studies integrated both types of data using joint displays, which are visual tools based on tables or figures for performing and representing integration in MMR more clearly (Guetterman et al, 2015(Guetterman et al, , 2021.…”

Section: Summary Of Main Findingsmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…In Phase 2, we used the insights gathered during the familiarization phase to revise and update the extraction form we would use in the review. The extraction form, which the first author had previously used in two methodological reviews ( Fàbregues et al, 2020 , 2022 ), was guided by the literature on MMR intervention studies, the Good Reporting of Mixed Methods Studies (GRAMMS) guidelines ( O’Cathain et al, 2008 ), and Fetters et al’s (2013) typology of integration approaches (see Supplementary File 2 for the extraction form). In Phase 3, the first author used the extraction form from Phase 2 to extract passages from the included articles in Microsoft Excel.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Third, no studies integrated both types of data using joint displays, which are visual tools based on tables or figures for performing and representing integration in MMR more clearly (Guetterman et al, 2015(Guetterman et al, , 2021. Previous methodological reviews of MMR intervention designs have also found that none or very few of the included studies used displays of this type (Fàbregues et al, 2022).…”

Section: Summary Of Main Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Use of mixed methods research in intervention studies to increase young people’s interest in STEM: A systematic methodological review

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionMixed methods research intervention studies integrate quantitative evaluation approaches, such as randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental designs, with qualitative research to evaluate the effectiveness, efficacy, or other results of an intervention or program. These types of studies, which have attracted growing attention in recent years, enhance the scope and rigor of the evaluation. While various frameworks that summarize the justifications for carrying out these types of studies and provide implementation guidance have been published in the last few years in the health sciences, we do not know whether such frameworks have been properly implemented in the social and educational sciences. This review examined the methodological features and reporting practices of mixed methods intervention studies aimed at increasing young people’s interest in STEM.MethodsA systematic search was carried out in APA PsycNET, ERIC, ProQuest, Scopus, and Web of Science, and a hand search in 20 journals. We included peer-reviewed English-language articles that reported intervention studies with a quantitative component measuring outcomes specific to increasing secondary school students’ interest in STEM fields, a qualitative component conducted before, during, or after the quantitative component, and evidence of integration of both components. Qualitative content analysis and ideal-type analysis were used to synthesize the findings.ResultsWe found 34 studies; the majority published in the last ten years. Several patterns of mixed methods application were described in these studies, illustrating the unique insights that can be gained by employing this methodology. The reporting quality of the included studies was generally adequate, especially regarding the justification for using a mixed methods intervention design and the integration of the quantitative and qualitative components. Nonetheless, a few reporting issues were observed, such as a lack of detail in the presentation of the mixed methods design, an inadequate description of the qualitative sampling and analysis techniques, and the absence of joint displays for representing integration.DiscussionAuthors must pay attention to these issues to ensure that the insights obtained by the use of mixed methods research are effectively communicated.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: Summary Of Main Findingsmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Summary Of Main Findingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Use of mixed methods research in intervention studies to increase young people’s interest in STEM: A systematic methodological review

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Methodologists have shown the utility of joint displays for depicting integration outcomes in MM studies (Guetterman, Fetters, & Creswell, 2015; Guetterman et al, 2021). Unfortunately, systematic reviews have noted the relative lack of joint displays, and specifically called out the potential for their greater use (Bartholomew & Lockard, 2017; Younas et al, 2019; Fabregues et al, 2020; Fabregues et al, 2022). In a specific systematic review of visual joint displays, (Guetterman, Fetters, & Creswell, 2015) examined the prevalence of joint display use and described advances and innovations found in published studies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Joint Displays of Integrated Data Collection in Mixed Methods Research

Fetters

Tajima

2022

International Journal of Qualitative Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mixed methods researchers need tools for planning and demonstrating integration. Mixed methods joint displays have a growing presence in the literature for representing mixed methods findings, and for use as an analytic tool as in the case of joint display analysis. However, the joint display of integrated data collection represents a lesser-known application for use by mixed methods researchers. A joint display for integrated data collection links the qualitative and the quantitative data collection questions, scales, and/or items. Here we demonstrate how joint displays of integrated data collection can be used as a planning, implementation, and presentation tool to illustrate integration of the data collection process. We examine variations in joint displays of integrated data collection based on three core mixed methods designs, a convergent design, and two sequential mixed methods designs, and provide examples of each from the literature. We recommend the joint display of integrated mixed data collection as a highly effective tool for mixed methods researchers to use for planning, implementing, and representing integrated data collection in their mixed methods projects.

show abstract

What caregivers like the most (and least) about cognitive behavioral therapy for youth anxiety: A mixed methods approach

Norris

Rabner

Crane

et al. 2023

Journal of Anxiety Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mixed methods intervention studies in children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders: A methodological review

Cited by 16 publications

References 31 publications

Use of mixed methods research in intervention studies to increase young people’s interest in STEM: A systematic methodological review

Use of mixed methods research in intervention studies to increase young people’s interest in STEM: A systematic methodological review

Joint Displays of Integrated Data Collection in Mixed Methods Research

What caregivers like the most (and least) about cognitive behavioral therapy for youth anxiety: A mixed methods approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About