This Briefing Note explores the experience from two studies in the Maldives and in Jamaica. In both studies a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods was used, linked by a scorecard approach. By ‘scorecard’ we refer to a set of questions that is the same in the focus groups and the quantitative interviews.

We designed the studies in this way to give us the best of both worlds; representative, statistically significant findings by means of the quantitative survey, and an understanding of why respondents had scored the way they had. The obvious benefits of this approach are that the group discussion adds value in terms of linking the scores to explanations, and that the qualitative explanations are ‘sharpened’ by having to provide a score.

Nevertheless, when designing this arrangement we wondered to what extent the scores from these methods overlap on a purely quantitative basis. In this Briefing Note we compare three approaches of getting quantitative scores used in these studies: Individual scores at the beginning of the focus groups; a group score after some discussion; and scores from the quantitative survey to see how they compare. We also wanted to explore how the group dynamics of discussion, diagnosis and scoring might influence the scores produced.

We also wanted to explore how the group dynamics of discussion, diagnosis and scoring might influence the scores produced.

Using the results from two case studies, we find that the methods used broadly match, which increases confidence in the results, but that one method cannot substitute the other.