This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Greene, J. Articles by McClintock, C. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Greene, J. Articles by McClintock, C. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Triangulation in Evaluation

Design and Analysis Issues

Cornell University

Charles McClintock

Cornell University

More effective use of mixed-methods evaluation designs employing quantitative and qualitative methods requires clarification of important design and analysis issues. Design needs include assessments of the relative costs and benefits of alternative mixed-methods designs, which can be differentiated by the independence of the different methods and their sequential or concurrent implementation. The evaluation reported herein illustrates an independent, concurrent mixed-method design and highlights its significant triangulation benefits. Strategies for analyzing quantitative and qualitative results are further needed. Underlying this analysis challenge is the issue of cross-paradigm triangulation. A comment on this issue is provided, in conjunction with several triangulation analysis strategies.

Evaluation Review, Vol. 9, No. 5, 523-545 (1985)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X8500900501


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				L. Morell and R. J. B. Tan Validating for Use and Interpretation: A Mixed Methods Contribution Illustrated Journal of Mixed Methods Research, July 1, 2009; 3(3): 242 - 264. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Gaber and S. L. Gaber Utilizing Mixed-Method Research Designs in Planning: The Case of 14th Street, New York City Journal of Planning Education and Research, December 1, 1997; 17(2): 95 - 103. [Abstract]

				S. A. Gilham, W. L. Lucas, and D. Sivewright The Impact of Drug Education and Prevention Programs: Disparity Between Impressionistic and Empirical Assessments Eval Rev, October 1, 1997; 21(5): 589 - 613. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. Goddard and J. Powell Using Naturalistic and Economic Evaluation To Assist Service Planning: A Case Study in the United Kingdom Eval Rev, August 1, 1994; 18(4): 472 - 492. [Abstract] [PDF]

				V. J. Caracelli and J. C. Greene Data Analysis Strategies for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, January 1, 1993; 15(2): 195 - 207. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. C. Greene, V. J. Caracelli, and W. F. Graham Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, January 1, 1989; 11(3): 255 - 274. [Abstract] [PDF]

				C. E. Basch Focus Group Interview: An Underutilized Research Technique for Improving Theory and Practice in Health Education Health Educ Behav, January 1, 1987; 14(4): 411 - 448. [Abstract] [PDF]