Examining mixing methods in an evaluation of a smoking cessation program

Abstract

Three different methods were used in an evaluation of a smoking cessation study: surveys, focus groups, and phenomenological interviews. The results of each method were analyzed separately and then combined using both a pragmatic and dialectic stance to examine the effects of different approaches to mixing methods. Results show that the further apart the methods are philosophically, the more diverse the findings. Comparisons of decision maker opinions and costs of the different methods are provided along with recommendations for evaluators’ uses of different methods.