Mixed Methods Research in School Psychology: A Critical Review

Introduction and Purpose

The purpose of Powell et al.'s (2008) journal article was to demonstrate the benefits of mixed methods research by applying it to the field of school psychology. The article functions as a discussion and review of evidence for the efficacy of mixed methodology, using empirical examples from psychology to support its argument. The overarching research question was whether mixed methods is more beneficial than qualitative or quantitative methodology alone when addressing scientific research questions. The specific examples the authors provided drew on two separate studies — one qualitative and one quantitative — that both used bullying as their topic of investigation.

Mixed Method Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Elements

Using the three examples provided by Powell et al. (2008), one can see how qualitative and quantitative approaches serve distinct but complementary functions. The qualitative study reviewed children's perceptions of bullying, while the quantitative study used a questionnaire to assess how frequently children experienced bullying behaviors — either as victim or perpetrator — as well as their feelings of safety and the degree of adult support available during bullying incidents.

When used in synthesis, these two studies support and enrich one another. The quantitative component provides a scientific layer of support to the qualitative findings, while the qualitative component supplies the rich emotional background that the numerical data alone cannot convey. Together, they produce a more complete picture than either approach could achieve independently.

The authors also provided a third example — a mixed methods study designed specifically to illustrate the value of this approach for school psychology. This study investigated the impact of a peer support service in a school with high rates of bullying. The researchers combined interviewing (qualitative) with a questionnaire (quantitative), and the strength of this design lay in the way the two methods worked in unison to provide a more balanced and accurate picture. When used alone, the quantitative study painted a discouraging portrait of the support service, suggesting it was weak. The interviews, however, revealed its strengths. Used together, the two approaches complemented one another and offered a far clearer account of the program's actual effectiveness.

Across each of the three studies cited as examples, a combination of interviewing and survey methods was used to collect data. The first monomethod study used convenience sampling. The sampling strategy of the second study is not clearly stated in the article, though random sampling was likely employed. The third study — the mixed methods example — also employed convenience sampling, given that its investigation focused on a program implemented in a specific school. In all three cases, the sampling strategies are not described in sufficient detail within the source article.

Data Collection and Sampling Strategy

In the monomethod studies, bullying functions as the independent variable, and the characteristics of bullying — such as children's feelings of safety — serve as the dependent variables. In the mixed methodology study, the peer support program is the independent variable, while rates of bullying represent the dependent variable.

Focusing on the mixed methods study as an illustrative example, both interviews and questionnaires carry inherent reliability concerns. Students may be reluctant to reveal their true opinions; they may be influenced by peer attitudes; their responses may be shaped by mood or situational context at the time of participation; or they may provide impulsive answers in an effort to complete the survey or interview as quickly as possible. These factors compromise both the reliability and validity of the data collected.