Frameworks for the measurement scales development in mixed methods research
The article presents analysis of four mixed methods frameworks for measurement scales development andvalidation. Three of themare presented in English-speaking sources and one–in the domestic: IDCV(A.Onwuegbuzie, R. Bustamante, J. Nelson), MDVR (R. Luyt), PEMI (P.-M. Daigneault, S. Jacob), and TVMS(S.Dembitskii).
Common to all approaches is the use of the consistent design. Given the status of the components,approaches are different. IDCV, MDVR and PEMI use the equivalent status of quantitative and qualitativecomponents, while TVMS-approach is based on the dominant status of the qualitative. Another important differencebetween the approaches is the specificity of their iteration. Relatively speaking, the IDCV, MDVR and PEMIiteration, has inductive character–at almost every stage obtained findings may force researchers to adjustmethodology, or to return to a previous stage for its re-implementation. This is precisely defining the specifics of thestage within which the relevant findings were obtained. Regarding TVMS, iteration has rather deductive character–all results are inspected not only with the consideration of the specific phase within which they are derived, but alsowith the consideration of theoretical positions that form the basis of the measuring technique validation and areconsidered to be theoretically valid.
Thus, although the approaches and paradigms belong to a mixed type ofresearch, they significantly differ from each other due to the differences of the theoretical and methodologicalprovisions they are based on. So, A. Onwuegbuzie, R. Bustamante, J. Nelson offer a specially crafted approach. R.Luyt uses the concept of measurement validity by R.Adcock and D.Collier. P.-M. Daigneault, S. Jacob insist on thespecial approach in its research efforts after obtaining unexpected results. S. Dembitskii refers to the concept oftheoretical validity.
Dembitskii, S. (2015). Theoretical validation in sociological research: methodology and techniques. Moscow: LENAND [in Russian].
Onwuegbuzie, A., Bustamante, R., Nelson, J. (2010). Mixed Research as a Tool for Developing Quantitative Instruments. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4, 56-78.
Luyt, R. (2012). A Framework for Mixing Methods in Quantitative Measurement Development, Validation, and Revision: A Case Study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4, 294-316.
Daigneault, P.-M., Jacob, S. (2014). Unexpected but Most Welcome: Mixed Methods for the Validation and Revision of the Participatory valuation Measurement Instrument. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 6-24.
Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. London: Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage.
Glaser, B., Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Fort Worth. Texas, Holt: Rinehart & Winston.
Newman, I., Lim, J., Pineda, F. (2013). Content Validity Using a Mixed Methods Approach: Its Application and Development Through the Use of a Table of Specifications Methodology. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3, 243-260.
Greene, J., Caracelli, V., Graham, W. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Education & Educational Research, 11, 255-274.
Leech, N., Onwuegbuzie, A. (2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for qualitative data analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 557-584.
Leech, N., Onwuegbuzie, A. (2008). Qualitative data analysis: A compendium of techniques and a framework for selection for school psychology research and beyond. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 587-604.
Tashakkori, A., Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
Onwuegbuzie, A. (2003). Effect sizes in qualitative research: A prolegomenon. Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 37, 393-409.
Onwuegbuzie, A., Leech, N., Collins, K. (2008). Interviewing the interpretive researcher: A method for addressing the crises of representation, legitimation, and praxis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 7, 1-17.
Adcock, R., Collier, D. (2001). Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review, 95, 529-546.
Johnson, B., Turner, L. (2003). Data Collection Strategies in Mixed Methods Research. In A. Tashakkori, C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of Mixed in Social and Behavioral Research (pp. 189-208). London: Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage.
Fenneto, E. (2004). Interview and questionnaire: forms, procedures and results. St. Petersberg: Piter [in Russian].
Guest, G., MacQueen, K., Namey, E. (2012). Applied Thematic Analysis. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.
Golovakha, E.I., Gorbachik, A., Lyubivaya, T. at all. (2008). Subjective reliability: theory and measurement method (MSR). Sotsiologiya: teoriya, metody, marketing – Sociology: it’s theory, methods, marketing, 1, 166-188 [in Russian].
Dembitskii, S. (2012). Theoretical validation of measuring scales. Sotsiologiya: teoriya, metody, marketing – Sociology: its theory, methods, marketing, 2, 53-65 [in Russian].
Dembitskii, S. (2014). Regarding problematic statistical validation of theoretical constructs. Sotsiologiya: teoriya, metody, marketing – Sociology: it’s theory, methods, marketing, 2, 190-194 [in Russian].
Strauss, A., Korbin, D. (2001). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Moscow: Editorial URSS [in Russian].
Yin, R. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage.
Kane, M., Trochim, W. (2007). Concept mapping for planning and evaluation. London: Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage.
Johnson, B., Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm. Whose Time Has Come, 7, 14-26.