Editing Questionnaire Items using the Delphi Method: Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods

Kim M. Mitchell, D. McMillan, M. Lobchuk, Nathan C. Nickel
{"title":"Editing Questionnaire Items using the Delphi Method: Integrating Qualitative and Quantitative Methods","authors":"Kim M. Mitchell, D. McMillan, M. Lobchuk, Nathan C. Nickel","doi":"10.29034/ijmra.v13n2a3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The authors of this article argue that instrument development studies can be situated within constructive realism, an intermediary ontology between the representative constructed items and objectivist goals of measurement. The Delphi method uses constructionist processes by gathering expert opinions about the variable they wish to measure. Despite its popularity, little pragmatic guidance exists for researchers using the method in instrument development studies and authors of instrument development studies rarely describe the strategies used to decide when to keep, edit, or delete items when merging both quantitative and qualitative assessments of the developing items. This article, therefore, describes mixed methods decision-making strategies as they were implemented during the Delphi phase of the Situated Academic Writing Self-Efficacy Scale (SAWSES) validation project. Five case-study items are presented to highlight the strategies used to integrate the qualitative and quantitative data provided by a Delphi panel. Data were integrated by categorizing the quantitative data as having strong evidence for inclusion, deletion, or neutrality. Concurrently, qualitative data were integrated with the quantitative data by contemplating panellists’ individual and collective opinions about item value and wording, as well as stream-of-consciousness reflections from panellists about the nature of writing self-efficacy. This article contributes to the literature by describing, through use of specific examples, how qualitative and quantitative data can be effectively integrated to make decisions in mixed methods instrument development research and should be useful for all beginning and seasoned researchers attempting tool development.","PeriodicalId":89571,"journal":{"name":"International journal of multiple research approaches","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of multiple research approaches","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29034/ijmra.v13n2a3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The authors of this article argue that instrument development studies can be situated within constructive realism, an intermediary ontology between the representative constructed items and objectivist goals of measurement. The Delphi method uses constructionist processes by gathering expert opinions about the variable they wish to measure. Despite its popularity, little pragmatic guidance exists for researchers using the method in instrument development studies and authors of instrument development studies rarely describe the strategies used to decide when to keep, edit, or delete items when merging both quantitative and qualitative assessments of the developing items. This article, therefore, describes mixed methods decision-making strategies as they were implemented during the Delphi phase of the Situated Academic Writing Self-Efficacy Scale (SAWSES) validation project. Five case-study items are presented to highlight the strategies used to integrate the qualitative and quantitative data provided by a Delphi panel. Data were integrated by categorizing the quantitative data as having strong evidence for inclusion, deletion, or neutrality. Concurrently, qualitative data were integrated with the quantitative data by contemplating panellists’ individual and collective opinions about item value and wording, as well as stream-of-consciousness reflections from panellists about the nature of writing self-efficacy. This article contributes to the literature by describing, through use of specific examples, how qualitative and quantitative data can be effectively integrated to make decisions in mixed methods instrument development research and should be useful for all beginning and seasoned researchers attempting tool development.
德尔菲法编辑问卷项目:定性与定量相结合
本文的作者认为,仪器开发研究可以位于建设性现实主义中,这是一种介于有代表性的构建项目和客观测量目标之间的中介本体。德尔菲方法通过收集专家对他们想要测量的变量的意见来使用建构主义过程。尽管该方法很受欢迎,但在仪器开发研究中使用该方法的研究人员几乎没有实用的指导,仪器开发研究的作者也很少描述在合并开发项目的定量和定性评估时,用于决定何时保留、编辑或删除项目的策略。因此,本文描述了情境学术写作自我效能感量表(SAWSES)验证项目的德尔菲阶段实施的混合方法决策策略。介绍了五个案例研究项目,以强调用于整合德尔菲小组提供的定性和定量数据的策略。通过将定量数据分类为具有纳入、删除或中立性的有力证据来整合数据。同时,通过考虑小组成员对项目价值和措辞的个人和集体意见,以及小组成员对写作自我效能性质的意识流反思,将定性数据与定量数据相结合。本文通过具体的例子描述了如何有效地整合定性和定量数据,以在混合方法仪器开发研究中做出决策,这对文献做出了贡献,对所有尝试工具开发的新手和经验丰富的研究人员都很有用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信