A mixed method approach to clarify the construct validity of interprofessional collaboration: An empirical research illustration

References

• Barr H., Koppel I., Reeves S., Hammick M., Freeth D.. 2005. Effective interprofessional education. Argument, assumption and evidence. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Cooper R.. Appraising qualitative research reports: A developmental approach. The Qualitative Report. 2011; 16 6: 1731–1740.
   Google Scholar
• Creswell J.. 2009. Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Cronbach L., Gleser G., Nanda H., Rajaratnam N.. 1972. The dependability of behavioural measurements: Theory of generalizability of scores and profiles. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Dellinger A., Leech N.. Toward a unified framework in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2007; 1 4: 309–332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Denzin N.K.. 1989. The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Elliott R., Fischer C.T., Rennie D.L.. Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology. 1999; 38:215–229.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fossey E., Harvey C., McDermott F., Davidson L.. Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 2002; 36:717–732.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbs G.R.. 2007. Analyzing qualitative data. In: U. Flick. editors. The Sage qualitative research kit. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Hagtvet, K.A. (2006). The latent variable program. Measuring and analyzing constructs. PhD Program, University of Oslo. Oslo..
   Google Scholar
• Hammersly M., Atkinson P.. 1983. Ethnography: Principles in Practice. London: Tavistock Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson R.B., Onwuegbuzie A.J., Turner L.A.. Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research. 2007; 1 2: 112–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kisley S., Kendall E.. Critically appraising qualitative research: A guide for clinicians more familiar with quantitative techniques. Australian Psychiatry. 2011; 19 4: 364–367.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitto S.C., Chesters J., Grbich C.. Quality in qualitative research: Criteria for authors and assessors in the submission and assessment of qualitative research articles for the Medical Journal of Australia. Medical Journal of Australia. 2008; 188:243–246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kleven T.A.. Validity and validation in qualitative and quantitative research. Nordisk Pedagogikk. 2008; 3:219–233.
   Google Scholar
• Kuper A., Reeves S., Levinson W.. An introduction to reading and appraising qualitative research. British Medical Journal. 2008; 336:288–296.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kvale S.. 1989. Issues of validity in qualitative research. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Leathard A.. 2003. Interprofessional collaboration: From policy to practice in health and social care. Hove and New York: Brunner-Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lindqvist S., Duncan A., Shepstone L., Watts F., Pearce S.. Development of the “Attitudes to Health Professionals Questionnaire” (AHPQ): A measure to assess interprofessional attitudes. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2005; 19:269–279.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lund T.. The qualitative-quantitative distinction: Some comments. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 2005; 49 2: 115–132.
   Google Scholar
• Mays N., Pope C.. Qualitative research: Rigour and qualitative research. British Medical Journal. 1995; 311:109–112.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meads G., Ashcroft J.. 2005. The case for interprofessional collaboration. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Messick S.. Validity of psychological assessment. American Psychologist. 1995; 50 9: 741–749.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morse J.M.. Approaches to qualitative-quantitative methodological triangulation. Nursing Research. 1991; 40 2: 120–123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morse J.M., Field P.A.. 1995. Qualitative research methods for health professionals. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Nunnally J.C.. 1967. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
   Google Scholar
• Pauzè E., Reeves S.. Examining the effects of interprofessional education on mental health providers: Finding from an updated systematic review. Journal of Mental Health. 2010; 19 3: 258–271.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reeves S., Albert M., Kuper A., Hodges B.D.. Why use theories in qualitative research?. British Medical Journal. 2008; 337 doi: 101136/bmja949.
   Google Scholar
• Reeves S., Zwarenstein M., Goldman J., Barr H., Freeth D., Koppel I., Hammick M.Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2010; 24 3: 230–241.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson A., Baker M., Burns T., Lilford R.J., Muijden M.. Reflections on methodological issues in mental health research. Journal of Mental Health. 2000; 9 5: 463–470.
   Google Scholar
• Risjord M.W., Dunbar S.B., Motoney M.F.. A new foundation for methodological triangulation. Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 2002; 23:269–272.
   Google Scholar
• Schmitt M.H.. Collaboration improves the quality of care: Methodological challenges and evidence from US health care research. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2001; 15 1: 47–66.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shadish W., Cook T., Cambell D.. 2002. Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs. Boston, MA: Haoghton Mifflin Company.
   Google Scholar
• Shavelson R.J., Webb N.M.. 1991. Generalizability theory – a primer. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Streiner D.L.. Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment. 2003; 80 1: 99–103.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tashakkori A., Teddlie C.. 2003. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research. London: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Tong A., Sainsbury P., Craig J.. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Journal of Quality in Health Care. 2007; 19:349–357.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ødegård A.. Perceptions of interprofessional collaboration in relation to children with mental health problems. A pilot study. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2005; 19 4: 347–357.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ødegård A.. Exploring perceptions of interprofessional collaboration in child mental health care. International Journal of Integrated Care. 2006; 6 Available at: http://www.ijic.org/index.php/ijic/article/viewArticle/165/328.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ødegård A., Strype J.. Perceptions of interprofessional collaboration within child mental health care in Norway. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2009; 23 3: 286–296.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ødegård A., Hagtvet K.A., Bjørkly S.. Applying aspects of generalizability theory in preliminary validation of the multifacet interprofessional collaboration model (PINCOM). International Journal of Integrated Care. 2008; 8 Available at: http://www.ijic.org/index.php/ijic/article/viewArticle/255/508.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar