Mixed methods in health psychology: Theoretical and practical considerations of the third paradigm

Journal of Health Psychology

Volumn 16, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 332-341

  Dures, E ^a   Rumsey, N ^a   Morris, M ^a   Gleeson, K ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST OF ENGLAND   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

epidermolysis bullosa; health psychology; mixed methods; paradigm; pragmatism

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE; EPIDERMOLYSIS BULLOSA; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; THEORETICAL MODEL;

BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE; EPIDERMOLYSIS BULLOSA; HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 79952689596     PISSN: 13591053     EISSN: 14617277     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1359105310377537     Document Type: Review

References (43)

1. Barbour, R. S. (1999). The case for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 4, 39-43.
2. Brannen, J. (2004). Working qualitatively and quantitatively. In C. Seale, G. Gobo, J. Gubrium, & D. Silverman (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 312-324). London: SAGE.
3. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
4. Bryman, A. (2006). Paradigm peace and the implications for quality. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 9, 111-126.
5. Burke Johnson, R., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
6. Burke Johnson, R., Onwuegbuzie, A., & Turner, L. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 112-133.
7. Carr, T., Moss, T., & Harris, D. (2005). The DAS24: A short form of the Derriford Appearance Scale DAS59 to measure individual responses to living with problems of appearance. British Journal of Health Psychology, 10, 285-298. (Pubitemid 40677065)
8. Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. London: SAGE.
9. Creswell, J., & Tashakkori, A. (2007). Editorial: Differing perspectives on mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 303-308.
10. Croninger, R., & Valli, L. (2009). Mixing it up about methods. Educational Researcher, 38, 541-545.
11. Crossley, M. (2000). Rethinking health psychology. Buckingham: Open University Press.
12. Dellinger, A., & Leech, N. (2007). Toward a unified framework in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 309-332.
13. Denscombe, M. (2008). Communities of practice: A research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2, 270-283.
14. Dures, E. (2009). An exploration of the psychosocial impact of epidermolysis bullosa on the daily lives of affected adults and identification of associated support needs. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of the West of England, Bristol.
15. Dures, E., Morris, M., Gleeson, K., & Rumsey, N. (in press a). The psychosocial impact of epidermolysis bullosa. Qualitative Health Research.
16. Dures, E., Morris, M., Gleeson, K., & Rumsey, N. (in press b). 'You're whatever the patient needs at the time': The impact on health and social care professionals of supporting people with epidermolysis bullosa. Chronic Illness.
17. Engel, G. (1977). The need of a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science, 196, 129-136.
18. Goldberg, D. (1978). Manual of the General Health Questionnaire. Windsor: NFER Publishing.
19. Greene, J. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods, 2, 7-22.
20. Guba, E. (1990). The alternative paradigm dialog. In E. G. Guba (Ed.), The paradigm dialog (pp. 17-21). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
21. Hammersley, M. (1992). What's wrong with ethnography? London: Routledge.
22. Hayes, N. (2000). Doing psychological research. Buckingham: Open University Press.
23. Marks, D. (2006). The case for a pluralist health psychology. Journal of Health Psychology, 11, 367-372; author reply 401-408.
24. Mason, J. (2006). Mixing methods in a qualitatively driven way. Qualitative Research, 6, 9-25.
25. Maxcy, S. (2003). Pragmatic threads in mixed methods research in the social sciences: The search for multiple modes of inquiry and the end of the philosophy of formalism. In A. Tashakorri & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 51-90). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
26. Moran-Ellis, J., Alexander, V., Cronin, A., Dickinson, M., Fielding, J., Sleney, J., & Thomas, H. (2006). Triangulation and integration: Processes, claims and implications. Qualitative Research, 6, 45-59. (Pubitemid 43650773)
27. Morgan, D. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained: Methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Journal of Mixed Methods, 1, 48-76.
28. Morse, J. (2007). Ethics in action: Ethical principles for doing qualitative health research. Qualitative Health Research, 17, 1003-1005.
29. Murray, M., & Poland, B. (2006). Health psychology and social action. Journal of Health Psychology, 11, 379-384; author reply 401-408.
30. O'Cathain, A. (2009). Editorial: Mixed methods research in the health sciences - a quiet revolution. Journal of Mixed Methods, 3, 1-6.
31. O'Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2007). Integration and publications as indicators of 'yield' from mixed methods studies. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 147-163.
32. O'Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2008). The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 13, 92-98. (Pubitemid 351702973)
33. Onwuegbuzie, A., & Leech, N. (2006). Linking research questions to mixed methods data analysis procedures. The Qualitative Report, 11, 474-498.
34. Patton, M. (1980). Strategic themes in qualitative inquiry. In M. Patton (Ed.), Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd edn, pp. 35-60). London: SAGE.
35. Robson, C. (2002). Approaches to social research. In C. Robson, Real world research (pp. 3-15). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
36. Rozin, P. (2001). Social psychology and science: Some lessons from Solomon Asch. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 2-14.
37. Schwandt, T. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative inquiry. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd edn, pp. 189-214). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.
38. Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M. Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user's portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35-37). Windsor: NFER-NELSON.
39. Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction. London: SAGE.
40. Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. (2007). Exploring the nature of research questions in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods, 1, 207-211.
41. Tashakkori, A., & Creswell, J. (2008). Editorial: Mixed methodology across disciplines. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2, 3-6.
42. Wallston, K., Stein, M., & Smith, C. (1994). Form C of the MHLC scales: A condition-specific measure of locus of control. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 534-553.
43. Yardley, L., & Bishop, F. (2007). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: A pragmatic approach. In C. Willig & W. Stainton-Rogers (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research in psychology (pp. 352-367). London: SAGE.