Using qualitative comparative analysis as a mixed methods synthesis in systematic mixed studies reviews: Guidance and a worked example
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) is a hybrid method designed to bridge the gap between qualitative and quantitative research in a case-sensitive approach that considers each case holistically as a complex configuration of conditions and outcomes. QCA allows for multiple conjunctural causation, implying that it is often a combination of conditions that produces an outcome, that multiple pathways may lead to the same outcome, and that in different contexts, the same condition may have a different impact on the outcome. This approach to complexity allows QCA to provide a practical understanding for complex, real-world situations, and the context of implementing interventions. There are guides for conducting QCA in primary research and quantitative systematic reviews yet, to our knowledge, no guidance for conducting QCA in systematic mixed studies reviews (SMSRs). Thus, the specific objectives of this paper are to (1) describe a step-by-step approach for novice researchers for using QCA to integrate qualitative and quantitative evidence, including guidance on how to use software; (2) highlight specific challenges; (3) propose potential solutions from a worked example; and (4) provide recommendations for reporting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.581 | 0.610 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".