CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 52Evaluation and Performance AssessmentDelphi Technique in ResearchEducational Research and Methods

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Mixed-method evaluation: Developing quality criteria through concept mapping

Caracelli, Valerie J., Riggin, Leslie J.C.·1994·Evaluation Practice
DOI 10.1016/0886-1633(94)90005-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The views and opinions expressed here should not be construed to be the policy or position of the U.S. General Accounting Office. For the first phase of this ongoing project, Valerie J. Caracelli and Leslie J.C. Riggin contributed equally to writing this article.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0886-1633(94)90005-1

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Health care research includes many studies that combine quantitative and qualitative methods.

    “Health care research includes many studies that combine quantitative and qualitative methods, as seen in numerous articles and books published in the last decade (Caracelli and Greene, 1993; Caracelli and Riggin, 1994; Casebeer and Verhoef, 1997; Datta, 1997; Droitcour, 1997; Greene and Caracelli, 1997; House, 1994; Morgan, 1998; Morse, 1991; Tashakkori and Teddlie, 1998).”

    From Revisiting the Quantitative-Qualitative Debate: Implications for Mixed-Methods Research (2002) · cites this paper as Caracelli and Riggin, 1994

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Caracelli, 1993, Data analysis strategies for mixed-method evaluation designs, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 195, 10.3102/01623737015002195 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Cordray, 1993, Synthesizing evidence and practices, Evaluation Practice, 14, 1, 10.1016/0886-1633(93)90028-N · DOI
  3. Patton, 1988, The evaluator's responsibility for utilization, Evaluation Practice, 9, 5, 10.1016/S0886-1633(88)80059-X · DOI
  4. Schwandt, 1989, Recapturing moral discourse in evaluation, Educational Researcher, 18, 11, 10.3102/0013189X018008011 · DOI
  5. Sechrest, 1992, Roots: Back to our first generations. AEA 1991 presidential address, Evaluation Practice, 13, 1, 10.1016/0886-1633(92)90018-7 · DOI
  6. Trochim, 1989, An introduction to concept mapping for planning and evaluation, Evaluation and program planning, 12, 1, 10.1016/0149-7189(89)90016-5 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Trochim, 1986, Conceptualization for evaluation and planning, Evaluation and Program Planning, 9, 289, 10.1016/0149-7189(86)90044-3 · DOI
  8. Ward, 1963, Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 236, 10.2307/2282967 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Caracelli, V. J., & Riggin, L. J. C.
Affiliations
United States Government Accountability Office (US)
Venue
Evaluation Practice
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
1994-06
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
139-152
ISSN
0886-1633 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/0886-1633(94)90005-1
OpenAlex
W1556212070
Cited by
52
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 6
FWCI
0.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
Evaluation Practice (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
Keywords
quality standards, concept mapping

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review