Bern University of Applied Sciences, School of Health Professions, Bern, Switzerland.
Academic-Practice-Partnership of Bern University of Applied Sciences and Insel Gruppe, Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2023 Jan 25;23(1):83. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09040-3.
Quantitative and qualitative procedures are necessary components of instrument development and assessment. However, validation studies conventionally emphasise quantitative assessments while neglecting qualitative procedures. Applying both methods in a mixed methods design provides additional insights into instrument quality and more rigorous validity evidence. Drawing from an extensive review of the methodological and applied validation literature on mixed methods, we showcase our use of mixed methods for validation which applied the quality criteria of congruence, convergence, and credibility on data collected with an instrument measuring interprofessional collaboration in the context of Swiss healthcare, named the Swiss Instrument for Evaluating Interprofessional Collaboration.
We employ a convergent parallel mixed methods design to analyse quantitative and qualitative questionnaire data. Data were collected from staff, supervisors, and patients of a university hospital and regional hospitals in the German and Italian speaking regions of Switzerland. We compare quantitative ratings and qualitative comments to evaluate the quality criteria of congruence, convergence, and credibility, which together form part of an instrument's construct validity evidence.
Questionnaires from 435 staff, 133 supervisors, and 189 patients were collected. Analysis of congruence potentially provides explanations why respondents' comments are off topic. Convergence between quantitative ratings and qualitative comments can be interpreted as an indication of convergent validity. Credibility provides a summary evaluation of instrument quality. These quality criteria provide evidence that questions were understood as intended, provide construct validity, and also point to potential item quality issues.
Mixed methods provide alternative means of collecting construct validity evidence. Our suggested procedures can be easily applied on empirical data and allow the congruence, convergence, and credibility of questionnaire items to be evaluated. The described procedures provide an efficient means of enhancing the rigor of an instrument and can be used alone or in conjunction with traditional quantitative psychometric approaches.
定量和定性程序是仪器开发和评估的必要组成部分。然而，验证研究通常强调定量评估，而忽略定性程序。在混合方法设计中应用这两种方法可以提供对仪器质量的更多见解，并提供更严格的有效性证据。根据对混合方法的方法学和应用验证文献的广泛回顾，我们展示了我们在验证中使用混合方法的情况，该方法应用了在瑞士医疗保健背景下测量跨专业合作的仪器“瑞士跨专业合作评估仪器”中使用的数据的一致性、收敛性和可信度质量标准。
我们采用收敛并行混合方法设计来分析定量和定性问卷数据。数据来自瑞士德语和意大利语地区的一所大学医院和区域医院的工作人员、主管和患者。我们比较定量评分和定性评论，以评估一致性、收敛性和可信度的质量标准，这些标准共同构成仪器构念有效性证据的一部分。
共收集了 435 名工作人员、133 名主管和 189 名患者的问卷。一致性分析可能提供了为什么受访者的评论离题的解释。定量评分和定性评论之间的收敛可以解释为收敛有效性的指示。可信度提供了仪器质量的综合评估。这些质量标准提供了问题被理解为预期的证据，提供了构念有效性，并且还指出了潜在的项目质量问题。
混合方法提供了收集构念有效性证据的替代方法。我们建议的程序可以轻松应用于经验数据，并允许评估问卷项目的一致性、收敛性和可信度。所描述的程序提供了一种增强仪器严谨性的有效方法，可以单独使用或与传统的定量心理测量方法结合使用。
