2009
DOI: 10.5172/mra.455.3.1.88
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Utilizing mixed methods to assess parasocial interaction of an entertainment–education program audience

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
16
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(16 citation statements)
references
References 27 publications
0
16
0
Order By: Relevance
“…(10, 11) African Americans’ decisions to become a registered organ donor were explored using both qualitative (focus groups) and quantitative (survey) methods. (Figure 1) The results from survey and focus group analysis were compared to produce more consistent and valid conclusions.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…(10, 11) African Americans’ decisions to become a registered organ donor were explored using both qualitative (focus groups) and quantitative (survey) methods. (Figure 1) The results from survey and focus group analysis were compared to produce more consistent and valid conclusions.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The study used a concurrent mixed methods design, [7][8][9] which has been previously used in community health research to address health disparities. 10,11 African Americans' decisions to become a registered organ donor were explored by using both qualitative (focus groups) and quantitative (survey) methods (see Figure). The results from survey and focus group analysis were compared to produce more consistent and valid conclusions.…”
Section: Designmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cognitively-oriented Para Social Interaction is defined as the degree to which an audience member pays careful attention to the educational content of soap opera episodes and reflects its meaning and importance. Behaviorally-oriented PSI is defined as degree to which an audience member talks about media messages with other audience members and or to the characters themselves in a soap opera (Papa et al 2000;Singhal et al 2004;Sood & Rogers 2000) in (Kawamura, Ivankova, Kohler, & Perumean-Chaney, 2009).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Table 1 summarizes the key components of a classic grounded theory model and applies it to intervention research. It includes a definition for each term as well as illustrative examples from MM-GT intervention studies that are reviewed in the findings section of the article (i.e., Harms, King, & Francis, 2009; Kawamura, Ivankova, Kohler, & Perumean-Chaney, 2009; Morgan & Stewart, 2002; Shim et al, 2017).…”
Section: Distinguishing Features Of Classic Grounded Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A study of examples of published research reveals that there are other possibilities for ways that the qualitative and quantitative strands of a mixed method study can be integrated to extend the explanatory power of a theoretical model. I turn in the next section to explore four mixed methods publications where the purpose to evaluate an educational or health-related intervention is extended to refining an initial conceptual model developed from the literature (i.e., Harms et al, 2009; Kawamura et al 2009; Morgan & Stewart, 2002; Shim et al, 2017). While no single article achieves this, an examination of different of features of each makes it possible to envision a FIMM-GT study that begins with a multilayered framing of the research problem, accomplishes data analysis in a way that pursues discordant data and unexpected findings, and finally ends by producing a classic grounded theory model that configures the findings in a way that depicts a temporal sequence.…”
Section: Review Of Relevant Literaturementioning
confidence: 99%