Evaluation-Focused Exploratory Sequential Mixed Methods

The structure is identical — qualitative phase followed by quantitative phase, linked by instrument building. The evaluation-focused label signals that the overarching purpose is program or policy evaluation rather than theory development or measurement tool creation. This affects sampling (stakeholders and program participants), reporting (to decision-makers), and integration logic (findings must address evaluation questions about effectiveness, equity, or improvement).

You can adapt an existing instrument, but the exploratory sequential rationale requires that Phase 1 themes visibly shape Phase 2 measures. If a validated instrument already fully captures your constructs, the exploratory phase adds little methodological value and a single-phase or explanatory sequential design may be more efficient.

Phase 1 qualitative samples follow qualitative norms: 8–20 participants for interviews or 2–4 focus groups typically suffices to reach thematic saturation. Phase 2 quantitative samples should be large enough for the intended statistical analysis — usually at minimum 50–100 for descriptive surveys, more if subgroup comparisons or regression models are planned.

Integration is most clearly demonstrated through a joint display — typically a table showing qualitative themes in one column and corresponding survey items in the adjacent column — alongside a narrative explanation of how each theme drove instrument decisions. Including a flow diagram of the two phases also helps readers see the sequential logic.

Not strictly required, but it is highly recommended. Evaluation-focused mixed methods designs are positioned within responsive and participatory evaluation traditions. Involving program staff or beneficiaries in reviewing Phase 1 findings before instrument construction improves relevance and buy-in, and aligns with best practice in evaluation ethics.