CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5,687Evaluation and Performance AssessmentEducational Research and MethodsQualitative Comparative Analysis Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 32 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs

Greene, Jennifer C., Caracelli, Valerie J., Graham, Wendy F.·1989·Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis
DOI 10.3102/01623737011003255
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In recent years evaluators of educational and social programs have expanded their methodological repertoire with designs that include the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods. Such practice, however, needs to be grounded in a theory that can meaningfully guide the design and implementation of mixed-method evaluations. In this study, a mixed-method conceptual framework was developed from the theoretical literature and then refined through an analysis of 57 empirical mixed-method evaluations. Five purposes for mixed-method evaluations are identified in this conceptual framework: triangulation, complementarity, development, initiation, and expansion. For each of the five purposes, a recommended design is also presented in terms of seven relevant design characteristics. These design elements encompass issues about methods, the phenomena under investigation, paradigmatic framework, and criteria for implementation. In the empirical review, common misuse of the term triangulation was apparent in evaluations that stated such a purpose but did not employ an appropriate design. In addition, relatively few evaluations in this review integrated the different method types at the level of data analysis. Strategies for integrated data analysis are among the issues identified as priorities for further mixed-method work.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3102/01623737011003255

Cites

32 of 32 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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 32 references

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Bower JC, 1986, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association
  2. Cook TD, 1979, Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research
  3. Denzin NK, 1978, The research act: An introduction to sociological methods
  4. Gray P, 1987, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association
  5. Greene JC, 1987, Proposal for the 1988 annual meeting of the American Education Research Association
  6. Kidder LH, 1987, Multiple methods in program evaluation: New Directions for Program Evaluation 35, 57
  7. Knapp MS, 1979, Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research, 118
  8. Louis KS, 1981, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association
  9. Mark MM, 1988, Panel presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association
  10. Mark MM, 1987, Multiple methods in program evaluation: New Directions for Program Evaluation 35, 95
  11. Martin GO, 1987, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association
  12. 10.2307/1174583 · DOI
  13. Moody PR, 1982, Pitt Meadows physical education project: Evaluation of an implementation project
  14. Reichardt CS, 1979, Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research, 7
  15. Reichardt CS, 1987, Multiple methods in program evaluation: New Directions for Program Evaluation 35, 7
  16. Shotland RL, 1987, Multiple methods in program evaluation: New Directions for Program Evaluation 35, 77
  17. Smith ML, 1986, Naturalistic evaluation: New Directions for Program Evaluation 30, 37
  18. Trend MJ, 1979, Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research, 68
  19. Webb EJ, 1966, Unobtrusive measures

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 901–1,000 of 1,010

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F.
Affiliations
Cornell University (US)
Venue
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis
Publisher
American Educational Research Association (AERA)
Published
1989-09
Volume
11
Issue
3
Pages
255-274
ISSN
  • 0162-3737 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-1062
DOI
10.3102/01623737011003255
OpenAlex
W2109685530
Cited by
5,687
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 282 · 2025: 266 · 2024: 273 · 2023: 300 · 2022: 321 · 2021: 377 · 2020: 322 · 2019: 300 · 2018: 266 · 2017: 286 · 2016: 314 · 2015: 336 · 2014: 328 · 2013: 300 · 2012: 279
FWCI
6.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Research and Methods
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Qualitative Comparative Analysis Research
Keywords
conceptual framework, evaluation design, triangulation, complementarity, program evaluation, educational program evaluation, social program evaluation, integrated data analysis, design features

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