Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40184615›Full record

ReviewEvaluation review2026

A Critical Reflection of Generalization in Mixed Methods Research.

Quan Nha Hong, Sergi Fàbregues

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Evaluation review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Quan Nha HongSchool of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, and Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation of Greater Montreal (CRIR), Montréal, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2576-5750
Sergi FàbreguesDepartment of Psychology and Education, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1141-7613

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mixed methods research, that is, research that integrates qualitative and quantitative methods, has become increasingly popular in program evaluation because of its potential for understanding complex interventions. Despite recent constructive and fruitful developments that have led to the consolidation of mixed methods as a distinctive methodology, fundamental methodological issues such as generalization have received little attention. The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical reflection on how the concept of generalization has been used in mixed methods research. The paper is structured into four main parts. First, we discuss the relevance of external validity and mixed methods research in impact evaluation. Second, we summarize how generalization is conceptualized in mixed methods research. Third, we present the results of a literature review on generalization practices in mixed methods research. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of threats to and strategies for enhancing generalization in mixed methods research.

Indexed as

Program EvaluationQualitative ResearchResearch DesignHumansReproducibility of Resultsexternal validitygeneralizabilitygeneralizationmixed methods researchtransferability

Identifiers

PMID40184615
PMCPMC12916878

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.