Report mixed methods rigor by labeling the design, describing both strands and their integration, and citing mixed methods literature¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 2 claims (2 for) · 1 study (1 review), q2 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 2 claims rest on one study

Description¶

Based on the review's identified weaknesses, authors of mixed methods articles should explicitly label their design type, describe the quantitative and qualitative strands and how they are integrated, provide a rationale for using mixed methods, and reference mixed methods literature. The review notes that "Integration, a defining feature of MMR, is one of the most challenging activities involved in conducting and reporting MMR", and that word-count limits make transparent reporting of integration and methods difficult, so authors must decide what detail to report within limited space.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Explicit design label, rationale, description of both strands, and explicit description of integration during data collection and/or interpretation

Constraints¶

• Journal word-count limitations constrain how much methodological detail can be reported

Target Learners¶

• emerging mixed methods researchers in educational psychology
• authors submitting to disciplinary journals

Target Learning Goals¶

• high-quality reporting of methodological rigor in mixed methods articles

Claims¶

• Reporting quality was highest for data collection (84.2% high ratings) and data analysis (80.7%), and lowest for mixed methods study design (47.4%), aims and purposes (52.6%), and elements of writing (54.4%) [+W]
• Among the 57 mixed methods articles, explanatory sequential designs were most common (52.6%), followed by convergent (40.4%) and exploratory sequential (7.0%) designs [+W]

Related Strategies¶

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Matthew T. McCrudden · Macy Bowman · Gala Sofia Campos Oaxaca. (2025). Reporting of Methodological Rigor in Empirical Mixed Methods Research in Educational Psychology. Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-025-10090-8