# SAGE Journal Articles

Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Dellinger, A. B., & Leech, N. L. (2007). Toward a unified validation framework in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (4), 309–332.

Abstract: The primary purpose of this article is to further discussions of validity in mixed methods research by introducing a validation framework to guide thinking about validity in this area. To justify the use of this framework, the authors discuss traditional terminology and validity criteria for quantitative and qualitative research, as well as present recently published validity terminology for mixed methods research. The authors discuss the rationale for their framework and how it unifies thinking about validity in mixed methods research. Finally, they discuss how the framework can be used.

Heyvaert, M., Hannes, K., Maes, B., & Onghena, P. (2013). Critical appraisal of mixed methods studies. Journal of Mixed Method Research, 7(4), 302–327.

Abstract: In several subdomains of the social, behavioral, health, and human sciences, research questions are increasingly answered through mixed methods studies, combining qualitative and quantitative evidence and research elements. Accordingly, the importance of including those primary mixed methods research articles in systematic reviews grows. It is generally known that the critical appraisal of articles is an essential step in the development of a methodologically sound review. This article provides an overview of the available critical appraisal frameworks developed to evaluate primary mixed methods research articles. In addition, we critically compare and evaluate these frameworks and the quality criteria they include.

Leech, N. L., Dellinger, A. B., Brannagan, K. B., & Tanaka, H. (2010). Evaluating mixed research studies: A mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(1), 17–31.

Abstract: The purpose of this article is to demonstrate application of a new framework, the validation framework (VF), to assist researchers in evaluating mixed research studies. Based on an earlier work by Dellinger and Leech, a description of the VF is delineated. Using the VF, three studies from education, health care, and counseling fields are evaluated. The three mixed research studies differed in design and implementation. Elements of the VF were examined and evaluated for each study, and a picture of the quality of each study was captured textually. In presenting the VF and its potential for practical application in evaluating mixed research studies, pragmatic researchers can use this tool to increase the quality of their evaluations of mixed research studies.

O'Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2007). Integration of publications as indicators of  'yield' from mixed methods studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1 (2), 147–163.

Abstract: A mixed methods study has the potential to produce knowledge that is unavailable to a qualitative study and a quantitative study undertaken independently. Any unique insight or yield'' from a mixed methods study may be difficult to assess in practice. However, given that integration of data or findings from different components of a study is a core characteristic of mixed methods research, two possible indicators of yield can be used: first, the extent to which researchers exploit the potential for integration in mixed methods studies; and second, the way in which this integration is communicated in peer-reviewed journal articles. Here, the authors apply these indicators to mixed methods studies in health services research in the United Kingdom.