Sale Joanna E M, Brazil Kevin
McMaster University, Canada.
Qual Quant. 2004 Aug;38(4):351-65. doi: 10.1023/b:ququ.0000043126.25329.85.
The practice of mixed-methods research has increased considerably over the last 10 years. While these studies have been criticized for violating quantitative and qualitative paradigmatic assumptions, the methodological quality of mixed-method studies has not been addressed. The purpose of this paper is to identify criteria to critically appraise the quality of mixed-method studies in the health literature. Criteria for critically appraising quantitative and qualitative studies were generated from a review of the literature. These criteria were organized according to a cross-paradigm framework. We recommend that these criteria be applied to a sample of mixed-method studies which are judged to be exemplary. With the consultation of critical appraisal experts and experienced qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-method researchers, further efforts are required to revise and prioritize the criteria according to importance.
在过去十年中，混合方法研究的实践有了显著增加。虽然这些研究因违反定量和定性范式假设而受到批评，但混合方法研究的方法质量尚未得到探讨。本文的目的是确定用于严格评估健康文献中混合方法研究质量的标准。通过对文献的回顾得出了用于严格评估定量和定性研究的标准。这些标准是根据一个跨范式框架组织的。我们建议将这些标准应用于一批被判定为典范的混合方法研究样本。在咨询严格评估专家以及经验丰富的定性、定量和混合方法研究人员后，还需要进一步努力根据重要性对标准进行修订和排序。
