Mixed methods intervention studies in children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders: A methodological review.
Most mixed-methods studies hide the merge step—show it plainly so clinicians can trust and use your findings.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Fàbregues et al. (2022) read 30 studies that used both numbers and stories to test treatments for kids with emotional and behavioral disorders.
They looked for clear reasons why each team picked mixed methods and how they glued the two kinds of data together.
The team scored how well authors explained their design, showed the merge step, and linked findings to real-life choices.
What they found
Most papers never said why they used both surveys and interviews.
Only a handful showed where the number-crunch and the quotes met; many tucked one set of results into an appendix and called it mixed.
The review gives a checklist: name your mixed-method plan, state the merge point, and show how the blend changes the intervention.
How this fits with other research
Scott et al. (2023) looked at follow-up data in behavior studies and found the same hole: authors mention maintenance but skip the details.
Ryan et al. (2022) saw the gap in RIRD papers—treatment integrity and social validity are often missing.
Together these reviews paint one picture; we keep asking how long, how well, and how honest our methods are, yet we still leave the page blank.
Gitimoghaddam et al. (2022) scouted 770 ABA-for-autism studies and also found few controlled comparisons, showing the problem cuts across diagnoses and designs.
Why it matters
If you write or read mixed-methods studies, demand the merge step. Ask where the numbers meet the narrative and how that changed the plan. Share the checklist with your team so your next grant or report tells the full story.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add one line to your current report that states exactly where and how your graph data and interview notes connect.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Mixed methods intervention studies can improve the accuracy of interventional evaluations in the field of emotional and behavioral disorders by helping researchers gain a more nuanced understanding of how a particular intervention works. However, no studies to date have systematically examined the ways in which this type of studies have been carried out and reported. AIM: To examine the methodological features and reporting practices found in mixed methods intervention studies in children and adolescents with emotional and behavioral disorders. METHOD: Methodological review based on a systematic search from inception to July 2021 in Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS, and a hand search in seven journals. RESULTS: We found 30 studies, most of them published since 2019. These studies reported several patterns of mixed methods use which illustrated the unique insights that researchers can gain by using this approach. We identified several ways that authors could more clearly report the justification for using a mixed methods approach, the description of the design used, and the evidence of integration of the quantitative and qualitative components. CONCLUSION: We make recommendations for improving the reporting quality of mixed methods intervention studies in the field of emotional and behavioral disorders.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2022 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2022.104239