Cited by 555Educational Research and MethodsBusiness Strategies and Management ResearchQualitative Research Methods and Applications

A Mixed Methods Investigation of Mixed Methods Sampling Designs in Social and Health Science Research

Collins, Kathleen M. T., Onwuegbuzie, Anthony J., Jiao, Qun G.·2007·Journal of Mixed Methods Research

Abstract

A sequential design utilizing identical samples was used to classify mixed methods studies via a two-dimensional model, wherein sampling designs were grouped according to the time orientation of each study's components and the relationship of the qualitative and quantitative samples. A quantitative analysis of 121 studies representing nine fields in the social or health sciences revealed that more studies utilized a sampling design that was concurrent (66.1%) than sequential (33.9%). Also, identical sampling designs were the most prevalent, followed by nested sampling, multilevel sampling, and parallel sampling, respectively. Qualitative analysis suggested that across a number of studies the researchers made statistical generalizations that were not sufficiently warranted—culminating in interpretive inconsistency and contributing to crises of representation, legitimation, integration, and politics.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1558689807299526

Cites

83 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • A purposive sampling approach was used to identify and recruit individuals with knowledge of EBI implementation and sustainment in each service system, consistent with mixed-methods sampling recommendations.

    “Consistent with recommendations for sampling in mixed-methods, a purposive sampling approach was used to identify and recruit the most relevant individuals with knowledge of the EBI implementation and sustainment in each service system (Aarons, Fettes, Sommerfeld, & Palinkas, 2012; Collins, Onwuegbuzie, & Jiao, 2007; Teddlie & Yu, 2007).”

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 85 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Collins, K. M. T., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Jiao, Q. G.
Affiliations
  • University of Arkansas at Fayetteville (US)
  • University of South Florida (US)
  • Baruch College (US)
Venue
Journal of Mixed Methods Research
Published
2007-07
Volume
1
Issue
3
Pages
267-294
ISSN
  • 1558-6898 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-6901
OpenAlex
W2104948087
Cited by
552
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 35 · 2021: 39 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 35 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 26
FWCI
48.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Mixed Methods Research (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Business Strategies and Management Research
  • Social Sciences › Education › Qualitative Research Methods and Applications
Keywords
nested sampling, multilevel sampling, synchronous sampling, time orientation, statistical generalization, politics of research

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