Wednesday, June 19, 2013

For Your Review: Mixed Bag of Mixed Methods?

Impact of interprofessional education on collaboration attitudes, skills, and behavior among primary care professionals.  Robben S, Perry M, van Nieuwenhuijzen L, van Achterberg T, Rikkert MO, Schers H, Heinen M, Melis R. J Continuing Ed Health Prof. 2012; 32(3): 196-204. Available online from the Baystate Health Sciences Library, or from PubMed at your institution.

Robben and colleagues offer a perfect platform for discussion with this article outlining a program evaluation of an interprofessional educational intervention in the Netherlands. As if the application of social cognitive theory and Kirkpatrick's levels of program evaluation outcomes weren't enough, we are also invited to enjoy the design and analysis of a mixed-methods approach to evaluation. 

So we're good, right? Not quite. Similar to the way that my computer's Spellcheck--er, Spell-check feature still questions me when I write "interprofessional" as a non-hyphenated word even though I do it on purpose, so too must we continue to question educational research even though it is published. 

I do not profess to say that this study is flawed (or that it isn't). But it does require exploration into key concepts. For example, the tools used for the quantitative exploration of this study are noted to produce valid scores; but where's the evidence? Also, the qualitative data support many themes in the results, but no data (direct quotes) are provided? And I dare you to read this article without Googling "human movement scientist" and "Hawthorne effect."  All in all, this article is a stone on which to sharpen your critical analysis teeth. Dig in.  

Bottom Line:

Excellent example of a mixed-methods program evaluation or novice term paper filled with fancy words but little substance? You decide. The interprofessional inter-professional nature of the content is just the cherry on top.