Republic of the Philippines

Commission on Higher Education

Samar Colleges, Inc.
COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES
City of Catbalogan

Course : MAED- Educational Management

Subject : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Term : Summer 2022

Professor : GUILLERMO D. LAGBO, DPA

Name of Student: Divina C. Herbolario

Topic : JOURNAL ARTICLE REPORTING STANDARDS

What is APA Style JARS?

APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards (APA
Style JARS) are a set of guidelines designed for journal
authors, reviewers, and editors to enhance scientific rigor
in peer-reviewed journal articles. Educators and students
can use APA Style JARS as teaching and learning tools for
conducting high quality research and determining what
information to report in scholarly papers.

 APA Style Journal Article Reporting Standards (APA

Style JARS) offer guidelines on what information should
be included in all manuscript sections for:
 Quantitative research (JARS–Quant)
 Qualitative research (JARS–Qual)
 Mixed Methods research (JARS–Mixed)
 Your research will be clearer and more accurate if you
follow APA Style JARS.
The guidelines include information on what should be
included in all manuscript sections for:
 Quantitative research (JARS–Quant)
 Qualitative research (JARS–Qual)
 Mixed methods research (JARS–Mixed)
Using these standards will make your research clearer
and more accurate as well as more transparent for readers.
For quantitative research, using the standards will increase
the reproducibility of science. For qualitative research,
using the standards will increase the methodological
integrity of research.
Overview of Reporting Standards
3.1 APPLICATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF JARS
Help readers fully understand the research being
reported and draw valid conclusions from the work. Allow
reviewers and editors to properly evaluated manuscripts
submitted for publication for their scientific value.
Enable future researchers to replicate the research
reported. Foster transparency
(https://apastyle.apa.org/jars/transparency). Improve the
quality of published research.
3.2 Terminology used in jars
Researchers use many methods and strategies to meet
their research goals, and the guidelines in JARS were
developed to facilitate the reporting of research across a
range of research traditions (Appelbaum et al., 2018; Levitt
et al., 2018)
These methods fall into either quantitative,
qualitative, or mixed methods traditions; separate reporting
standards exist for each tradition. See the JARS website
(https://apastyle.apa.org/jars/glossary) for a glossary of
related terms, including “approaches to inquiry”, “data-
analytic strategies”, “data-collection strategies”,
“methodological integrity”, “research design”, and
“trustworthiness”.
Common reporting standards across research designs
TWO INITIAL ELEMENTS OF JOURNAL ARTICLES
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
3.3 Abstract standards
- Abstract is a brief, comprehensive summary of the
contents of the paper.
- A well prepared abstract can be the most important
paragraph in an article.
- Readers frequently decide on the basis of the abstract
whether to read the entire article.
- Need to be dense with information.

Qualities of a Good Abstract

A good abstract is:
 ACCURATE
- Reflects the purpose and content of the
paper.
- Do not include information that does not
appear in the paper body.
- If the study extends or replicates previous
research, cite the relevant work with an
author-date citation.
 NONEVALUATIVE
- Report rather than evaluative; do not add to or
comment on what is in the body of the paper.
 COHERENT AND READABLE
- Write in clear and deliberate language.
- Use verbs rather than their noun equivalents
and the active rather than the passive voice.
- E.g., “Investigated” instead of “an
Investigation of”; “we present results” instead
of “results are presented”
- Use the present tense to describe conclusions
drawn or results with continuing applicability.
- Use the past tense to describe specific
variables manipulated or outcomes measured.
 CONCISE
- Be brief, and make sentence maximally
informative, especially the lead sentence.
 - Begin the abstract with the important points.
- Do not waste space by repeating the title
- Include only four or five most important
concepts, findings, or implications.
- Use the specific words in your abstract that
you think your audience will use in their
searches.

Empirical articles
The abstract for an empirical article
(Quantitative, Qualitative, or Mixed methods should
describe the following:
- The problem under investigation, in one sentence,
if possible; when presenting quantitative
analysis, include the main hypotheses, questions,
or theories under investigation.
- Participants or data sources, specifying pertinent
characteristics (e.g., for nonhuman animal
research, include the genus and species)
- Essential features of the study method, including
 Research design (e.g., experimental,
observational, qualitative, mixed methods)
 Analytic strategy (e.g. ethnography, factor
analysis)
 Data-gathering procedures
 Sample size (typically for quantitative
analyses) or description of the volume of
observations or number of participants
(typically for qualitative analysis)
 Materials or central measures used
 A statement about whether the study is a
secondary data analysis
- Basic Findings, including
 For quantitative analysis, effect sizes and
confidence intervals in addition to
statistical significance level when possible.
 For qualitative methods, main findings in
relation to central contextual features
- Conclusions and implications or applications of
the research findings.

Replications Articles
- Type of replication being reported (e.g., direct
[exact, literal], approximate, conceptual [construct])
- Scope of the replication in detail
- Originally study or studies that are being replicated
- General conclusions reached in the replication
-
Quantitative or qualitative meta-analysis
- Research problems, questions, or hypotheses under
investigation
- Characteristics for the inclusions of studies,
including
  For quantitative meta-analysis, independent
variables, dependent variables, and eligible study
designs
 For qualitative meta-analysis, criteria for
eligibility in terms of study topic and research
design
- Methods of synthesis, including statistical or
qualitative metamethods used to summarize or compare
studies and specific methods used to integrate studies.
- Main results, including
- For all studies, the number of studies; the number of
participants, observations, or data sources; and their
important characteristics
 For quantitative analyses, the most important
effect sizes and any important moderators of these
effect sizes and any important moderators of these
effect sizes
 For qualitative analyses, the most important
findings in their context
- Conclusions (including limitations)
- Implications for theory, policy, and/or practice
Literature review articles
- The abstract for a literature review article should
describe the substantive content being reviewed,
including the following.
• Scope of the literature examined in the review (e.g,
journals, books, unpublished abstratcs) and the number
of items included in the interview
• Period of time covered in the review (e.g, range of
years)
• General conclusions reached in the interview

Theoretical Articles
The abstract for a theoretical article should describe
the following:
• How the theory or model works and/or the principles on
which it is based
• What phenomena the theory or model accounts for and
linkages to empirical results

Methodological Articles
The abstract for a methodological article should
describe the following:
• General class, essential features, and range of
applications of the methods, methodologies, or
epistemological beliefs being discussed
• Essential features of the approaches being
reported, such as robustness or power efficiency
in the case of statistical procedures or
methodological integrity and trustworthiness in
the case of qualitative methods

3.4 Introduction Standards

The body of a paper always opens with an introduction,
the introduction contains a succinct description of the
issues being reported, their historical antecedents, and the
study objectives.
Frame the importance of the problem
The introduction of an article frames the issues being
studied. Consider the various concerns on which your issue
touches and its effect on other outcome (e.g., the effects
of shared storybook reading on word learning in children).

Historical Antecedents
• Review the literature succinctly to convey to readers
the scope of the problem, its context, and its
theoretical implications.
• In this, process, describe any key issues, debates, and
theoretical frameworks and clarify barriers, knowledge
gaps, or practical needs. Including these descriptions
will show how your work builds usefully on what has
already been accomplished in the field.

Articulate Study Goals

• Clearly state and delimit the aims, objectives, and/or
goals of your study.
• Make explicit the rationale for the fit of your design
in relation to your aims and goals.
• Describe the goals in a way that clarifies the
appropriateness of the methods you used.

Quantitative Goals
• In a quantitative article, the introduction should
identify the primary and secondary hypotheses as well
as any exploratory hypotheses, specifying how the
hypotheses derive from ideas discussed in previous
research and whether exploratory hypotheses were
derived as a result of planned or unplanned analysis.

Qualitative Goals
• Personal narratives
• Vignettes
• Or other illustrative materials
• Examples of qualitative research goals include
developing theory, hypotheses, and deep understandings
(e.g., Hill, 2022; Stiles, 1993); examining the
development of a social construct (e.g., Neimeyer et
al., 2008) addressing societal injustices (e.g., Fine,
2013) and illuminating social discursive practices
(e.g., Parker, 2015)
• The term approaches to inquiry refers to the
philosophical assumptions that underline research
traditions or strategies.

Mixed Methods Goals

• The introduction should describe the objectives for all
study components presented, the rationale for their
being presented in one study, and the rationale for the
order in which they are presented within the paper.

Goals for other types of papers

 • Introductions for other types of papers follow similar
principles and articulate the specific motivation for
the study.

Reporting Standards for Quantitative Research

3.5 Basic expectations for quantitative research reporting

• There are specific reporting standards for quantitative
research articles, including the
• Methods
• Results, and
• Discussion sections
•
Table 3.1 quantitative design reporting standards (jars-
quant)

3.6 Quantitative Method Standards

The method section of a paper provides most of the
information that readers need to fully comprehend what was
done in the execution of an empirical study.

• PARTICIPANT (Subject) CHARACTERISTICS

• Critical to the science and practice of
psychology, particularly for generalizing the
findings, making comparisons across replications,
and using the evidence in research syntheses and
secondary data analyses.
 Sampling Procedures
 Sample size, power, and precision
 Measures and covariates
 Data collection
 Quality of measurements
 Research design
 Experimental manipulations or intervebtions
 Data diagnoses
 Analytic strategies

3.7 Quantitative Results Standards

 Participants flow
 Statistics and data analysis
 Missing data
 Reporting results of inferential statistical tests
 Inclusion of confidence intervals
 Effect sizes
 Studies with experimental manipulations or
interventions
 Ancillary analyses
 Baseline data
 Adverse events

3.8 Quantitative Discussion Standards

• In the discussion section of a quantitative paper,
examine, interpret and qualify the results of your
research and draw inferences and conclusions from them.
 • Open the discussion section with a clear statement of
support or nonsupport for all hypotheses, distinguished
by primary and secondary hypotheses.
• Discuss the implications of exploratory analyses in
terms of both substantive findings and error rates that
may be uncontrolled.
• Similarities and differences between your results and
the work of others (where they exist) should be used to
contextualize, confirm, and clarify your conclusions.
Do not simply reformulate and repeat points already
made; each new statement should contribute to your
interpretation and to readers' understanding of the
problem.

Limitations and strengths

• Your interpretation of the results should take into
account
 (a) sources of potential bias and other threats to
internal validity,
 (b) the imprecision of measures,
 (c) the overall number of tests and/or overlap
among tests,
 (d) the adequacy of sample sizes and sampling
validity, and
 (e) other limitations or weaknesses of the study.
• If an intervention or manipulation is involved, discuss
whether it was successfully implemented, and note the
mechanism by which it was intended to work (i.e., its
causal pathways and/or alternative mechanisms).

Study Implications
• End the Discussion section with a reasoned and
justifiable commentary on the importance of your
findings.
• This concluding section may be brief, or it may be
extensive if it is tightly reasoned, self-contained,
and not overstated. In the conclusion, consider
returning to a discussion of why the problem is
important (as stated in the introduction); what larger
issues, meaning those that transcend the particulars of
the subfield, might hinge on the findings; and what
propositions are confirmed or disconfirmed by the
extrapolation of these findings to such overarching
issues.

Also consider the following issues:

 What is the theoretical, clinical, or practica!
significance of the outcomes, and what is the basis for
these interpretations?
 If the findings are valid and replicable, what real-
life psychological phenomena might be explained or
modeled by the results?
 Are applications warranted on the basis of this
research?
 What problems remain unresolved or arise anew because
of these findings?
3.9 Additional reporting standards for typical experimental
and nonexperimental studies
 Studies using random assignment
• Describe the unit of assignment and the method
(rules) used to assign the unit to the condition,
including details of any assignment restrictions
such as blocking, stratification, and so forth.
• Describe any procedures used to minimize selection
bias such as matching or propensity score
matching.
 Clinical trials

• Within the JARS context, a clinical trial or a

randomized clinical trial is a research
investigation that evaluates the effects of one or
more health related interventions (e.g.,
psychotherapy, medication) on health outcomes by
prospectively assigning people to experimental
conditions. As used here, a clinical trial is a
subset of a class of studies called "randomized
control studies," and the reporting standards for
clinical trials apply to randomized control
studies as well.

 Nonexperimental designs

• Nonexperimental studies (in which no variable is

manipulated) are sometimes called, among other
things, "observational," "correlational," or
"natural history" studies. Their purpose is to
observe, describe, classify, or analyze naturally
occurring relationships between variables of
interest. In general, describe the design of the
study, methods of participant selection and
sampling (e.g., prospective, retrospective, case-
control, cohort, cohort sequential), and data
sources.
3.10 Reporting standards for special designs
 Longitudinal studies

• A longitudinal study involves the observation of

the same individuals using the same set of
measurements (or attributes) at multiple times or
occasions. This multiple observational structure
may be combined with other research designs,
including those with and without experimental
manipulations, randomized clinical trials, or any
other study type. Reporting standards for
longitudinal studies must combine those for the
basic underlying study structure with those
specific to a longitudinal study.
 N-of-1 studies

• Studies with N-of-1 designs occur in several

different forms; however, the essential feature of
 all these designs is that the unit of study is a
single entity (usually a person). In some N-of-1
studies, several individual results are described,
and consistency of results may be a central point
of the discussion.
• Describe the design type (e.g., withdrawal-
reversal, multiple baseline, alternating-
simultaneous treatments, changing criterion) and
its phases and phase sequence when one or more
manipulations have been used. Indicate whether and
how randomization was used.
 Replication articles

• For a replication article (see Section 1.4),

indicate the type of replication (e.g., direct
[exact, literal], approximate, conceptual [con-
struct]).
• Provide comparisons between the original study and
the replication being reported so readers can
evaluate the degree to which there may be factors
present that would contribute to any differences
between the findings of the original study and the
findings of the replication being reported.
3.11 Standards for analytic approaches
 Structural equation modeling

• is a family of statistical techniques that involve

the specification of a structural or measurement
model. The analysis involves steps that estimate the
effects represented in the model (parameters) and
evaluate the extent of correspondence between the
model and the data. These standards are complex and
call for a comprehensive description of data
preparation, specification of the initial model(s),
estimation, model fit assessment, specification of
the model(s), and reporting of results.
 Bayesian techniques

• are inferential statistical procedures in which

researchers estimate parameters of an underlying
distribution on the basis of the observed
distribution. These standards are complex and
address the needs of this analytic approach,
including how to specify the model, describe and
plot the distributions, describe the computation of
the model, report any Bayes factors, and report
Bayesian model averaging.
3.12 Quantitative Meta-Analysis Standards
These standards are specific to meta-analyses but can
easily generalize to other quantitative research synthesis
approaches. One feature of meta-analyses that makes them
different (in reporting demands) from other study types is
that the units of analysis are research reports-usually
articles that have been published or archived. The primary
features of the included studies are numerical estimates of
the effect sizes of the phenomena of interest. The reporting
standards for quantitative meta-analyses are complex and
include how to describe study selection, study inclusion and
exclusion criteria, and data collection, as well as how to
summarize the selected studies and their characteristics.

Reporting standards for qualitative research

3.13 BASIC EXPECTATIONS FOR QUALITATIVE RESEARCH REPORTING
The basic expectations for reporting qualitative
research are presented in Table 3.2. An additional table on
the JARS website describes the reporting standards for
qualitative meta-analyses (see Section 3.17). There are many
qualitative procedures and methods as well as many designs
and approaches to inquiry in which they can be embedded;
because of this variation, all the elements described in
Table 3.2 and the guidelines in Sections 3.14 to 3.16 may
not be appropriate for all qualitative studies.
• Authors must decide how sections should be organized
within the context of their specific study.
• For example, qualitative researchers may combine the
Results and Discussion sections because they may not
find it possible to separate a given finding from its
interpreted meaning within a broader context. Qualita-
tive researchers may also use headings that reflect the
values in their tradition (such as "Findings" instead
of "Results") and omit ones that do not.
• Qualitative papers may appear different from
quantitative papers because they tend to be longer.

3.14 QUALITATIVE METHOD STANDARDS

RESEARCH DESIGN OVERVIEW DESIGN
• The Method section of a qualitative article begins with
a paragraph that summarizes the research design. It
might mention the data-collection strategies, data-
analytic strategies, and approaches to inquiry and
provide a brief rationale for the design selected if
this was not described in the objectives section of the
introduction (see Section 3.4).
RESEARCHER DESCRIPTION
• To situate the investigation within the expectations,
identities, and positions of the researchers (e.g.,
interviewers, analysts, research team), describe the
researchers' backgrounds in approaching the study,
emphasizing their prior understandings of the phenomena
under study.
Participants or other data sources
• When describing participants or data sources, report
the following: number of participants, documents, or
events analyzed; demographic or cultural information
relevant to the research topic; and perspectives of
 participants and characteristics of data sources
relevant to the research topic. As applicable, describe
data sources (e.g., newspapers, internet, archive).

Researcher- participant’s relationships

• To increase transparency, describe the relationships
and interactions between researchers and participants
that are relevant to the research process and any
impact on the research process (e.g., any relationships
prior to the study, any ethical considerations relevant
to prior relationships).
Participants recruitment
• There is no minimum number of participants for a
qualitative study (see Levitt et al., 2017, for a
discussion on adequacy of data in qualitative
research). Authors should provide a rationale for the
number of participants chosen, often in light of the
method or approach to inquiry that is used. Some
studies begin with researchers recruiting participants
to the study and then selecting participants from the
pool that responds.
Recruitment process
• Report the method of recruitment (e.g., face-to-face,
telephone, mail, email) and any recruitment protocols,
and describe how you conveyed the study purpose to
participants, especially if it was different from the
purpose stated in the study objectives (see Section
3.4). For instance, researchers might describe a
broader study aim to participants (e.g., to explore
participants' experience of being on parole) but then
focus their analysis in a specific manuscript on one
aspect of that aim (e.g., the relationships between
participants and parole officers).
Participant selection
• To describe how participants were selected from within
an identified group, explain any inclusion and/or
exclusion criteria as well as the participant and/or
data source selection process that was used. This
selection process can consist of purposive sampling
methods, such as maximum variation; convenience
sampling methods, such as snowball selection;
theoretical sampling; or diversity sampling.
Data collection
• Researchers may use terms for data collection that are
coherent with their research approach and process, such
as "data identification," "collection," or "selection."
Descriptions should be provided, however, in terms that
are accessible to readers.
Data-collection or identification procedures
• In addition to describing the form of data collected
(e.g., interviews, questionnaires, media, observation),
 convey any alterations to the data-collection strategy
(e.g., in response to evolving findings or the study
rationale).

Recording and data transformation

• Identify how data were recorded for analysis and
explain whether and how data were transformed. This
might include a statement regarding audio or visual
recording methods, field notes, or transcription.
Analysis
• The two primary topics to report in the description of
qualitative analyses are the data analysis and the
establishment of methodological integrity. Researchers
may use terms for data analysis that are coherent
within their research approach and process (e.g.,
"interpretation," "unitization," "eidetic analysis,"
"coding"). Descriptions should be provided, however, in
terms that are accessible to readers.
Data-analytic strategies
• Describe the methods and procedures of data analysis
and the purpose or goal for which they were used.
Explain in detail the process of analysis. Describe the
process of arriving at an analytic approach (e.g.,
whether a set of categories of coding was developed
before or during the analysis, whether findings emerged
from an inductively driven process of analysis; see the
glossary on the JARS website at
https://apastyle.apa.org/jars/glossary).
Methodological integrity
• Highlight procedures that support methodological
integrity throughout the paper or summarize central
points in a separate section of the Method section when
elaboration or emphasis would be helpful (for more on
methodological integrity, see Levitt et al., 2017, and
the glossary on the JARS website at
https://apastyle.apa.org/jars/glossary). Demonstrate
that the claims made from the analysis are warranted.
Highlight key features of methodological integrity, as
follows:
• ADEQUACY

• RESEARCHERS’ PERSPECTIVES

• GROUNDEDNESS

• MEANINGFULNESS

• CONTEXT

• COHERENCE

• CONSISTENCY
The following are examples of supplemental checks that can
strengthen the research:
 • transcripts or Data returned to participants for
feedback;
• triangulation across multiple sources of information,
findings, or investigators;
• checks on interview thoroughness or interviewer
demands;
• consensus or auditing processes;
• member checks or participant feedback on findings;
• data displays or matrices;
• in-depth thick description, case examples, and
illustrations;
• structured methods of researcher reflexivity (e.g.,
memos, field notes, log books, diaries, journals,
bracketing); and
• checks on the utility of findings in responding to
the study problem (e.g., evaluation of whether a
solution worked).
3.15 QUALITATIVE FINDINGS OR RESULTS STANDARDS
• In qualitative research papers, findings may or may not
include quantified information, depending on the
study's goals, approach to inquiry, and study char-
acteristics. Note that the heading "Findings" may be
used rather than "Results."
 COMPATIBILITYWITH STUDY DESIGN

• Findings should be presented in a manner that is

compatible with the study design. For instance,
findings of a grounded theory study might be
described using categories organized in a
hierarchical form and marked by discrete divisions,
whereas findings of an ethnographic study might be
written in a chronological narrative format.
 DEPICTIONS OF FINDINGS

• Qualitative findings can be presented in various

ways. Illustrations (e.g., diagrams, tables, models;
see Chapter 7) may be used to organize and convey
findings. Photographs or links to videos can be used
as well (see Sections 2.15 and 7.30).
3.16 QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION STANDARDS
• In this process, the interpretations of the findings
are described in a way that takes into account the
limitations of the study as well as plausible
alternative explanations.
INTERPRETING THE MEANING OF YOUR FINDINGS
• Instead of simply restating results, a good Discussion
section develops readers' understanding of the issues
at hand.
 • To do this, describe the central contributions of your
research and their significance in advancing
disciplinary understandings.
• Identifying similarities and differences from prior
theories and research findings will help in this
process.
• Describe the contributions the findings make (e.g.,
elaborating on, challenging, or supporting prior
research or theory) and how findings can be best
utilized.
LIMITATIONS AND STRENGHTS
• Include a subsection to identify the strengths and
limitations of the study (e.g., consider how the
quality, source, or types of data or the analytic
processes might support or weaken the study's
methodological integrity, reliability, or validity).
Within this subsection, describe the limits of the
scope of generalizability or transferability (e.g.,
issues readers should consider when using findings
across contexts).
Study Implications
• Convey to readers how your findings might be used and
their implications. In this process, you might outline
emerging research questions, theoretical insights, new
understandings, or methodological designs that
advantage the conceptualization, implementation,
review, or reporting of future studies.
3.17 Qualitative Meta-Analysis Standards
• Qualitative meta-analyses (see Section 1.5) have unique
reporting standards that are available in full on the
JARS website (https://apastyle.apa.org/jars/qual-table-
2.pdf). Two features of qualitative meta-analysis
reporting highlighted in this section are reporting on
the aggregative process and reporting situatedness.
Reporting on the Aggregative Process
• The methodological integrity of the results of meta-
analyses rests largely on the extent to which those
carrying out the analysis can detail and defend the
choices they made of studies to review and the process
they undertook to weigh and integrate the findings of
the studies. Authors of meta-analyses often aggregate
qualitative studies from multiple methodological or
theoretical approaches, and they must communicate the
approaches of the studies they reviewed as well as
their own approach to secondary data analysis.
Reporting situatedness
• Another factor that distinguishes qualitative meta
analyses from primary qualitative analyses is that they
often include an examination of the situatedness of the
authors of the primary studies reviewed (e.g., the
perspectives of the primary researchers as well as
 their social positions and contexts and their studies'
reflection of these perspectives.
Reporting standards for mixed methods research
3.18 Basic expectations for mixed methods research reporting
• Whereas standards for reporting information in the
abstract and introduction of a paper are common to all
kinds of research (see Sections 3.3-3.4), there are
specific reporting standards for mixed methods research
articles.
• The inherent assumption of mixed methods research is
that the combined qualitative findings and quantitative
results lead to additional insights not gleaned from
the qualitative or quantitative findings alone
(Creswell, 2015; Greene, 2007; Tashakkori & Teddlie,
2010).
• In mixed methods research, the thoughtful integration
of qualitative findings and quantitative results leads
to a deeper understanding of the data and enhanced
insights. In addition, authors can publish multiple
papers from a single mixed methods study, such as a
qualitative study paper, a quantitative study paper,
and a mixed methods overview paper.
Incorporating both quantitative and qualitative standards
• The thoughtful and robust use of mixed methods requires
researchers to meet the standards of both quantitative
and qualitative research methodology in the design,
implementation, and reporting stages. To this end,
various mixed methods designs have emerged in the
literature (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017), and they
help inform the procedures used in reporting studies
(e.g., convergent design, exploratory sequential
design, explanatory sequential design).
Reflecting on the gains from integration
• The standards for mixed methods designs emphasize the
need to not only present both qualitative and
quantitative aspects of the research but also describe
their integration throughout the sections of the paper.
The mixed methods guidelines assist authors in
describing the combination of qualitative and
quantitative methods. Authors should convey not only
how the qualitative and quantitative methods contribute
to the study goals but also how they enhance one
another to provide a greater depth of understanding or
further the research aims.

Conclusion:
These standards are a tool for editors and reviewers to
recommend to authors whose work requires additional
explanation as well as a tool authors determining what is
essential to report in scholarly research.
 Journal article reporting standards in APA style is
more accurate and clear for your papers. Following the
guidelines, table, figures makes your paper reliable and
more informative. It is shows that research is not easy but
worth to give an effort to work on it. It will help to the
future researcher, and to our society.