Skip to main content

Table 1 Theoretical frameworks and applications of multi-method instrument validation 

From: Mixed methods instrument validation: Evaluation procedures for practitioners developed from the validation of the Swiss Instrument for Evaluating Interprofessional Collaboration

Theoretical Framework/

Framework Type

Characteristics

Applied by

Type of Method Mix

Application and Procedures

Dellinger and Leech [17] / Mixed Methods

•Unified Validation Framework (VF)

•Proposes elements of validity evidence to consider within a MM framework to conduct construct validation

•Does not prescribe specific procedures

Hales [36]

Mixed Methods-based literature review, using a MM framework for validation

•Application of VF in a literature review

•VF used to critique mixed methods studies on culturally responsive teaching

Onwuegbuzie et al. [16]/ Mixed Methods

•Instrument Development and Construct Validation (IDCV)

•Proposes procedures called crossover analyses that correspond to specific types of validity

•Crossover analysis applies qualitative methods to analyse quantitative data and vice-versa

Koskey et al. [37]

Mixed Methods, using a MM framework for validation

•Validation of the Transformative Experience Questionnaire

•Content- and construct-related validity established using quantitative methods

•Qualitative component used cognitive interviews to uncover issues with survey format, item wording, and response scale

Adcock and Collier [29] / Multiple Methods

(adaptable into a full mixed methods design)

•Four-level measurement validity framework

•Proposes shared standards for establishing validity using quantitative and qualitative methods

•Specifies procedures to establish quality criteria

Luyt [18] (adapted into a convergent parallel design)

Mixed Methods, using a general-purpose MM design: Convergent parallel design

•Development and validation of the Male Attitude Norms Inventory-II

•Applies Adcock and Collier’s four-level framework

•Framework is applied in a cyclical process alternating between measurement development, validation, and revision

None specified

n.a.

Enosh et al. [38]

Mixed Methods, using a general-purpose MM design: Sequential design

•Validation of the Client Violence Questionnaire

•4-stage process: 1 QL stage and 3 QN stages

•Stage 1: Semi-structured qualitative interviews to discover forms of client violence

•Stage 2: Formulation of single items

•Stage 3: Combining items into a scale

•Stage 4: Psychometric assessment

  

Groenvold et al. [43]

Multiple Methods, i.e., combined use of QN and QL methods in the same study without full mixing of data or results

•Re-examination of the validity of the Quality of Life Questionnaire EORTC QLQ-30

•Qualitative interview responses were transformed into quantitative responses and compared with the quantitative questionnaire responses

  

Waldrip and Fisher [42]

Multiple Methods, i.e., combined use of QN and QL methods in the same study without full mixing of data or results

•Development and validation of the Cultural Learning Environment Questionnaire

•Quantitative psychometric procedures

•Qualitative interviews asking about respondents’ perceptions of the instrument, including how they interpreted items and scales

•Student perceptions were judged whether they corresponded to the instrument authors’ intended meanings and objectives

  1. Note. QN: quantitative, QL: qualitative