Chat with us, powered by LiveChat Read EACH Students Response Provide THREE references to support your answer to the student I dont care of you use the same references to respond to all three students but - Writeden


 Read EACH Students Response

Provide THREE references to support your answer to the student

I dont care of you use the same references to respond to all three students but each answer MUST have three PEER REVIEWED references to support your response on if you agree or dont agree with the students answer to this weeks questions



There are three methods to evaluate interventional process: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed. Briefly describe each method and discuss strengths and weaknesses of each method. How can the data gathered using each method be harnessed to support the timing of change initiatives? Explain.



For qualitative method, the researcher focus is to develop scales to measure attitudes or actions related directly to the intervention in question (Abildgaard, J. S., & Nielsen, K. (2016Qualitative data is typically gathered through perception, meetings, or center gatherings, but it can also be gathered from written archives and through contextual investigations. Subjective examination places less emphasis on collecting the number of people who think or act in certain ways and more emphasis on explaining why people think and act in certain ways. Members in subjective studies frequently incorporate smaller quantities of instruments incorporate and use open-ended polls talk with guides. This type of examination is best used to answer how and why questions and is not appropriate for answering general what, when, and who questions. Thus, this method is appropriate for social science research (Sale, J. E., & Brazil, K. (2002). since it focuses on human relationships rather than numerical results. One strength is that the role is defined by the researcher. Another advantage is that qualitative method supplements and refines quantitative data, it gives more itemized data to disclose complex issues, has different strategies for social event information on touchy subjects and the information assortment is generally cost effective. The weakness is that it can be possible for researchers to struggle to obtain rich descriptive data. Moreover, the findings normally can't be summed up to the examination populace or network. Harder to examine; don't fit flawlessly in standard classes and the data assortment is typically tedious. Quantitative data are snippets of data that can be checked and are typically compiled through reviews of large numbers of respondents chosen at random for consideration. Auxiliary data, for example, evaluation data, government measurements, well-being framework measurements, and so on, are frequently remembered for quantitative examination. One of the advantages of using a mixed method is that the researcher can understand the research problem as a combination that can help analyze different aspects of the research. The following are also advantages of using mixed methods: Considers both quantitative and subjective data. In understanding inconsistencies between quantitative outcomes and subjective discoveries, blended techniques are especially useful. Reflects the viewpoint of the members. Blended techniques give members a voice and ensure that review discoveries are grounded in members' experiences.


Abildgaard, J. S., & Nielsen, K. (2016). How to measure the intervention process? An assessment of qualitative and quantitative approaches to data collection in the process evaluation of organizational interventions. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1380.

Sale, J. E., & Brazil, K. (2002). Revisiting the quantitative-qualitative debate: Implications for mixed-methods research. Quality and quantity, 36(1), 43-53.


The three methods to evaluate organizational interventions are quantitative, qualitative, and mixed. The quantitative method is used to quantify interpretations. It is used to measure attitudes and actions related to the organizational intervention (Abildgaard et al., 2016). For example, leveraging questionnaires and statistical models are included in the quantitative approach. In contrast, the qualitative method does not involve measurement nor statistics. The qualitative method collects data related to perceived quality. For example, conducting interviews or observations, can be included in the qualitative method. Consequently, qualitative data can sometimes be influenced, opinionated or biased. Since the quantitative method is statistical and relies heavily on measurable data, it can be seen as the more reliable of the two methods. However, using qualitative data can be valuable and is often times used to complement quantitative data (i.e. the mixed method). Ultimately examining data from both methods can be advantageous when determining the timing of change initiatives.


Abildgaard, J. S., Saksvik, P. Ø., & Nielsen, K. (2016). How to measure the intervention process? An assessment of qualitative and quantitative approaches to data collection in the process evaluation of organizational interventions. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1380. 


Shanise Fonville

May 6, 2023, 12:02 PM


When leaders observe an organizational change is necessary, they will use the interventional process of quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods approach to support the timing of change initiatives. Leaders who desire a measurable view of change may use a quantitative intervention. Leaders who desire to understand behaviors or circumstances may utilize a qualitative intervention. Leaders who seek measurable and descriptive interventions may use a mixed methods intervention. According to Danford (2023) Quantitative researchers will use numbers and correlations as a correspondent to their findings, while qualitative researchers will use individual’s experiences and words to communicate their findings. The benefits of qualitative interventions is that results can be descriptive and in detail. Weaknesses of a qualitative intervention is that the results could be biased. The benefit of a quantitative intervention will reveal numerical results of the organization as a whole. The weakness of a quantitative intervention is that it will not reveal real life experiences in detail; and that its results is based off of numbers. Furthermore, leaders can utilize a mixed methods approach to review variables of an organizational change. Hands (2022) discusses a mixed methods approach combines qualitative and quantitative approaches as it uses viewpoints and data collection. In addition, leaders can use the data gathered from using mixed methods interventions to be harnessed to support the timing of change initiatives. This can be done through readiness for change models. Readiness for change will reveal a support or resistance to change Mladenova (2022). After reviewing the results from the mixed methods approach, leaders will be able to assess if the organization is ready for change or if its not.


Danford, C. A. (2023). Understanding the Evidence: Qualitative Research Designs. Urologic Nursing, 43(1), 41–45.