Using Dedoose to “Quantitize” Qualitative Data in Mixed Method Analysis
A Case Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3138/cjpe-2023-0040Keywords:
program evaluation, mixed methods analysis, anesthesiology fellowshipAbstract
This practice note provides a review of Dedoose®, a software analysis platform capable of mixed methods analysis, based on a case application. The software has been used infrequently by the evaluation community but has significant potential, particularly for those interested in “quantizing” qualitative data. The evaluation of the World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists’ Fellowship Program is briefly described, followed by a description and critique of our application of Dedoose. The authors conclude by encouraging evaluation practitioners to seriously consider adding this mixed-methods data analysis platform to their chest of tools.
References
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Dixon-Ibarra, A., Nery-Hurwit, M., Driver, S., & MacDonald, M. (2017). Using health promotion guidelines for persons with disabilities to develop and evaluate a physical activity program for individuals with multiple sclerosis: A feasibility study. Evaluation and Program Planning, 61, 150–159.
Drozdova, K., & Gaubatz, K. T. (2017). Quantifying the qualitative: Information theory for comparative case analysis. Sage Publications.
Evans, F., Bould, D., Cousins, J. B., Nguyen, J. H., Subramarnia, J. B., Gacii, M., Zha, Y., & Yilma, L. (2023). Measuring impact and learning: A mixed methods evaluation of WFSA fellowship programs. University of Ottawa.
Gates, E. F., Madres, J., Hall, J. N., & Alvarez, K. B. (2022). It takes an ecosystem: Socioecological factors influencing equity-oriented evaluation in New England, U.S., 2021. Evaluation and Program Planning, 92, 102068.
Greene, G. J., Reidy, E., Felt, D., Marro, R., Johnson, A. K., Phillips, G., II, Green, E., & Stonehouse, P. (2022). Implementation and evaluation of patient navigation in Chicago: Insights on addressing the social determinants of health and integrating HIV prevention and care services. Evaluation and Program Planning, 90, 101977.
Gurdak, K., Bond, L., Padgett, D., & Petering, R. (2022). Transitioning to independent living: Experiences of homeless young adults in rapid rehousing. Evaluation and Program Planning, 92, 102076.
Hamadeh, N., Van Rompaey, C., Metreau, E., & Eapen, S. G. (2022, July 1). New World Bank country classifications by income level: 2022–2023. World Bank Blogs. https://blogs.worldbank.org/opendata/new-world-bank-country-classifications-income-level-2022-2023
Hatcher, A. M., McBride, R. S., Rebombo, D., Munshi, S., Khumalo, M., & Christofides, N. (2020). Process evaluation of a community mobilization intervention for preventing men’s partner violence use in peri-urban South Africa. Evaluation and Program Planning, 78, 101727.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
Mortenson, M. J., & Vidgen, R. (2016). A computational literature review of the technology acceptance model. International Journal of Information Management, 36(6), 1248–1259.
Salmona, M., Liber, E., & Kaczinski, D. (2020). Data analysis using Dedoose: A practical approach for research across the social sciences. Sage Publications.
Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., & Knafl, G. (2009). On quantitizing. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 3(3), 208–222.
Silver, C., & Rivers, C. (2013). Learning from the learners: the role of technology acceptance and adoption theories in understanding researchers’ early experiences with CAQDAS packages. In S. Friese & T. G. Ringmayer (Eds.), ATLAS.ti User Conference 2013: Fostering dialog on qualitative methods (Chapter 17). University Press of Technische Universität Berlin.
Szajna, B. (1996). Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model. Management Science, 42(1), 85–92.
Voith, L. A., Russell, K. N., Lee, H., Atwell, M. S., McKinney, S. J., Thomas, T., & Barksdale, E. M., Jr. (2023). Using grounded theory to develop a theory of change for a violence intervention program. Evaluation and Program Planning, 99, 102303.
Walker, T. J., Szeszulski, J., Robertson, M. C., Cuccaro, P. M., & Fernandez, M. E. (2022). Understanding implementation strategies to support classroom-based physical activity approaches in elementary schools: A qualitative study. Evaluation and Program Planning, 92, 102051.
Yim, M., Fellows, M., & Coward, C. (2020). Mixed-methods library evaluation integrating the patron, library, and external perspectives: The case of Namibia regional libraries. Evaluation and Program Planning, 79, 101782.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 J. Bradley Cousins, Jenny Hoang, Lydia Yilma, Yuanting Zha, Dylan Bould, V. Mark Gacii, Belavenkatan Subramanian, Faye Evans
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Authors contributing to The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation agree to release their articles under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 (CC-BY-NC) license. This licence allows this work to be copied, distributed, remixed, transformed, and built upon for any purpose provided that appropriate attribution is given, a link is provided to the license, and changes made were indicated.
Authors retain copyright of their work and grant the journal right of first publication.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
