From an epistemological point of view, Potvin and Jones (2010), describe health promotion research as being applied by nature, producing knowledge about the conditions, practices and processes that makes changes possible and consider that research process should be health promoting itself. Creswell (2013) characterise a research by its philosophical assumptions (paradigms), strategies of inquiry and research methods. Do research in health education and promotion (HEPR) refers to only one (participatory) or more paradigms? Is there a specific set of research strategies and methods (mixed methods) for health promotion research?

In fact, unlike others research fields (such as social psychology, sociology…) HEPR is not rooted in a particular theoretical and methodological framework. The research is about understanding practices rather than testing theories. In health education and health promotion, what is essential is not the framework but rather the practices/action and the people (individual, groups and institutions … stakeholders) who carry them out. The researcher can’t be outside of the action but is essentially an actor within it. A “neutral position” is not an option.

The HEPR has two goals that must be addressed: creation of new knowledge “epistemic” and social transformation “transformative”. In our view HEPR is by definition epistemic and transformative. One must ask then whether these two goals are compatible in research. This kind of tension between two different aims is not exclusive to HEPR. It also operates in fields of research such as: political science, engineering science, social research and educational research in general… In all of these sciences research must firstly address themselves to actual practices.

HEPR is also characterised by a willing engagement with complexity, a multidisciplinary approach and a specific ethical framework in relationship to the position of the stakeholders which are not “objects” but also “subjects” of the research process.

In this communication we will discuss the impact of the epistemological status of HEPS on quantitative data collection. Questionnaires are routine tools to collect quantitative data, especially in psychology (Bjorner & Rugulies, 2010), psychometrics scales are commonly used to measure variables in specific and clearly defined areas. The validation process is based on classical methods (Falissard, 2008). In HEPS, depending on the research project, that questionnaires could be used but other kind of questionnaires are often build with the stakeholders, take into account the complexity and thus are multidimensional. These tools could explore people’s views, practices, lifestyle, background information about contexts… In addition, the validation, as a part of the whole research project, has to be feasible (amount of time, resources and competencies requested) and to take place in the participatory approach. The validation of such questionnaires is a complex process. This communication will take a stock of the different approaches used for the validation of a questionnaire and will suggest a practical model taking into account the nature of HEPR.

Bjorner, J.B., & Pejtersen, J.H. (2010). Evaluating construct validity of the second version of the Copenhagen Psychosocial Questionnaire through analysis of differential item functioning and differential item effect. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 38(3 suppl), 90-105. Bouletreau, A., Chouanière, D., Wild, P., & Fontana, J.M. (1999). Concevoir, traduire et valider un questionnaire. A propos d'un exemple, EUROQUEST: Institut National de Recherche et de Sécurité. Creswell, JW. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches: Sage publications. Cronbach, L. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334. Falissard, B. (2008). Mesurer la subjectivité en santé: Perspective méthodologique et statistique (2 ed.). Issy Les Moulineaux: Elsevier Masson. Jourdan, Didier. (2015, in press). Une éducation à la santé pour tous les enfants et les adolescents. Toulouse: Éditions universitaires du sud. Marx, R.G., Menezes, A., Horovitz, L., Jones, E.C. & Warren, R.F. (2003). A comparison of two time intervals for test-retest reliability of health status instruments. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 56(8), 730-735. Potvin, L., Moquet, M-J. & Jones, CM. (2010). Réduire les inégalités sociales en santé: INPES éditions. Sauvé, S. (2005). Processus de validation d’un questionnaire : le cas de l’outil québécois de mesure. Paper presented at the Colloque francophone sur les sondages, Québec, Canada.