Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28562495›Full record

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.

Timothy C Guetterman, John W Creswell, Marsha Wittink, Fran K Barg, Felipe G Castro, Britt Dahlberg, Daphne C Watkins, Charles Deutsch, Joseph J Gallo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Timothy C GuettermanDr. Guetterman: Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Dr. Creswell: Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Dr. Wittink: Department of Psychiatry and Department of Family Medicine, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY. Dr. Barg: Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. Dr. Castro: College of Nursing & Health Innovation, Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ. Dr. Dahlberg: Institute for Research, Chemical Heritage Foundation, Philadelphia, PA. Dr. Watkins: School of Social Work, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI. Dr. Deutsch: Harvard Catalyst Population Health Research Program, Harvard University, Boston, MA. Dr. Gallo: Department of Mental Health, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.
John W Creswell
Marsha Wittink
Fran K Barg
Felipe G Castro
Britt Dahlberg
Daphne C Watkins
Charles Deutsch
Joseph J Gallo

Funding

Mixed Methods Research Training Program - SupplementR25MH104660 · NIMH · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI GALLO, JOSEPH JOHN · 2014 to 2023
$1.7M
NIMH NIH HHS R25 MH104660
6 · The paper itself

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

Self ReportClinical CompetenceFacultyHumansNational Institutes of Health (U.S.)PsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited States

Identifiers

PMID28562495
PMCPMC5472226

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.