Utilizing Mixed Research Methods to Develop a Quantitative Assessment Tool
- 23 March 2011
- journal article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Journal of Mixed Methods Research
- Vol. 5 (3), 212-226
- https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689811402505
Abstract
This article outlines the process of developing a quantitative instrument and livelihood asset index. The intent of the index was to assess household perspectives of the impact of the removal of explosive remnants of war on livelihoods. Conducted in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, the study used a sequential mixed methods design. It began with a qualitative component, which informed instrument development. The article discusses the instrument development process and some of the challenges faced. These included developing a reliable livelihood asset index and finding the limitations of quantitative indexes in this setting. Another challenge was reconciling tensions in mixing methods informed by different worldviews.Keywords
This publication has 37 references indexed in Scilit:
- Water needs assessment: Learning to deal with scale, subjectivity and high stakesJournal of Hydrology, 2010
- Questionnaires and Lived Experience: Strategies of Coping With the Quantitative FrameQualitative Inquiry, 2009
- Editorial: Mapping the Field of Mixed Methods ResearchJournal of Mixed Methods Research, 2008
- Telling It AllJournal of Mixed Methods Research, 2008
- Monitoring the livelihood platform: reflections on the operation of the Livelihood Asset-Status Tracking method from India and MalawiImpact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 2007
- Mixed Methods in Intervention Research: Theory to AdaptationJournal of Mixed Methods Research, 2007
- Comparing Incomparable Survey Responses: Evaluating and Selecting Anchoring VignettesPolitical Analysis, 2007
- Sustainable livelihood considerations for disaster risk managementDisaster Prevention and Management, 2006
- Livelihood asset status tracking: an impact monitoring tool?Journal of International Development, 2002
- Applying mixed methods under the framework of theory‐driven evaluationsNew Directions for Evaluation, 1997