ArticleThe Journal of continuing education in the health professions2017
Development of a Self-Rated Mixed Methods Skills Assessment: The National Institutes of Health Mixed Methods Research Training Program for the Health Sciences.
Article in The Journal of continuing education in the health professions, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Going virtual: mixed methods evaluation of online versus in-person learning in the NIH mixed methods research training program retreat.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Advancing discussion of ethics in mixed methods health services research.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Process Evaluation of a Retreat for Scholars in the First Cohort: The NIH Mixed Methods Research Training Program for the Health Sciences.Journal of mixed methods research · 2019Article
- Mixed methods grant applications in the health sciences: An analysis of reviewer comments.PloS one · 2019Article
- A Call for the Inclusion of Mixed Methods Research in the Undergraduate Psychology Curriculum.Frontiers in psychology · 2018Article
- Skills Development and Academic Productivity of Scholars in the NIH Mixed Methods Research Training Program for the Health Sciences.International journal of multiple research approaches · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDemand for training in mixed methods is high, with little research on faculty development or assessment in mixed methods. We describe the development of a self-rated mixed methods skills assessment and provide validity evidence. The instrument taps six research domains: "Research question," "Design/approach," "Sampling," "Data collection," "Analysis," and "Dissemination." Respondents are asked to rate their ability to define or explain concepts of mixed methods under each domain, their ability to apply the concepts to problems, and the extent to which they need to improve.
methodsWe administered the questionnaire to 145 faculty and students using an internet survey. We analyzed descriptive statistics and performance characteristics of the questionnaire using the Cronbach alpha to assess reliability and an analysis of variance that compared a mixed methods experience index with assessment scores to assess criterion relatedness.
resultsInternal consistency reliability was high for the total set of items (0.95) and adequate (≥0.71) for all but one subscale. Consistent with establishing criterion validity, respondents who had more professional experiences with mixed methods (eg, published a mixed methods article) rated themselves as more skilled, which was statistically significant across the research domains. DISCUSSION: This self-rated mixed methods assessment instrument may be a useful tool to assess skills in mixed methods for training programs. It can be applied widely at the graduate and faculty level. For the learner, assessment may lead to enhanced motivation to learn and training focused on self-identified needs. For faculty, the assessment may improve curriculum and course content planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.